|
|
Appendix II
- Summary Tables on the Advantages and Disadvantages
of Alternative Dental Restorative Materials

Table 1. Comparison of
the Advantages and Disadvantages of Composites, Pit and Fissure Sealants and Preventive Resin
Restorations
Table 2. Comparison of the Advantages and
Disadvantages of Glass Ionomer Restorations
Table 3. Comparison of the Advantages and
Disadvantages of Gold Foil Restorations
Table 4. Comparison of the Advantages and
Disadvantages of Cast Metal and Metal-Ceramic
Restoration
Table 5. Comparison of the Advantages and
Disadvantages of Ceramic Restorations

Appendix
III - Evaluation of Risks Associated
With Mercury Vapor from Dental Amalgam
Prepared
by the Subcommittee on Risk Assessment
Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related
Programs
November 7, 1991 (revised August 28,
1992)
In the United States, the most common dental
restorative material is amalgam containing about 50
percent mercury at the time of mixing with various
silver alloys. It has been used for more than 150 years.
However, because of improved dental hygiene, this is the
first generation of people who have reached the upper
ages and who have also preserved their teeth (1), thus
increasing the length of exposure to dental restorative
material. From 1971 to 1974, U.S. adults 18-74 years of
age had an estimated average of 6.9 filled teeth (2).
Exposure to mercury from amalgam occurs through
several avenues: inhalation of air containing elemental
mercury released from the amalgam; ingestion of amalgam
particles abraded from restored surfaces and of saliva
into which both elemental and corrosion produced
inorganic mercury products have dissolved; and ingestion
of amalgam particles generated during dental restorative
procedures (placement, restoration, or removal) (3-5).
Another source of exposure to elemental and inorganic
mercury is "tatooing," which may be created
when, as amalgam is being removed, amalgam particles are
physically embedded in soft tissue adjacent to the
restoration area (6).
Mercury in its many forms is widely distributed in
the environment and trace levels are present in air,
water, and food.
The toxicity of mercury and its compounds, recognized
since antiquity and widely acknowledged in industry, has
recently been reviewed (7-12). Signs and symptoms
associated with mercury intoxication from elemental
mercury include tremor, ataxia, personality change, loss
of memory, insomnia, fatigue, depression, headaches,
irritability, slowed nerve conduction, weight loss,
appetite loss, psychological distress, and gingivitis
(7,913). Most of these signs and symptoms have been
associated with persons with long-term occupational
exposure to air concentrations of mercury greater than
50 µg/m3 whose urinary mercury
concentrations are greater than 100 ug/L. Clinically
significant effects (erethism, intention tremor,
gingivitis) have not been reported below air
concentrations of 100 µ(g Hg/m . Most effects observed
in persons exposed to mercury in air concentrations
below 100 ug Hg/m3 are preclinical e.g.,
slowed nerve conduction, short term memory loss, special
instrumental tests for tremor. No clinical findings on
kidney function decrement have been found in persons
exposed to air mercury concentrations below 100 mg Hg/m3
. In comparison the range of mercury in urine for
persons with no clearly identifiable occupational source
of mercury exposure is up to 20 ug/L.
Because of the known toxicity of mercury, various
agencies have developed limits for mercury vapor in
workplace air to protect the health of workers. These
limits are based on the assumption that the workers will
have only 40 hours per week exposure to these levels of
mercury vapor. Both the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL)
(14) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit (REL) (15)
for mercury vapor in the workplace are 50 micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3) as a time-weighted average (TWA).
NIOSH in its criteria document (16), noted three
areas that make selecting a specific workplace level for
mercury difficult. These were 1) the prevalence in the
general population of the signs and symptoms identical
to those associated with early signs of mercury
intoxication, 2) sampling and analysis difficulties that
complicate the validity of measuring air levels, and 3)
a lack of established methods to specifically identify
the effects of exposure to low levels of mercury. On the
basis of available data and their recognized
limitations, NIOSH stated that a specific level at which
a standard should be established cannot be identified;
but concluded that the standard should not exceed 50 ug/m3.
The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a
health-based recommended lim3it for occupational
exposure of 25 ug/m3 . The WHO Study Group
selected this value to ensure a reasonable degree of
protection not only against tremor but against
mercury-induced nonspecific symptoms (17). Effects
induced by exposures that exceed these levels have been
well documented (7,9,10,16). Long-term exposure to
elemental mercury in workplace air has produced tremor
in some workers at mercury levels of 100 ug/m3
and nonspecific symptoms at levels of 50 ug/m3.
In the United States, there is little difference between
acceptable workplace exposures and those that produce
symptoms after long-term exposure. Therefore, basing
low-level or ambient exposure on some fraction of the
permissible workplace exposure is not likely to provide
satisfactory protection for the sensitive portion of the
population such as the young, the aged and the
chronically ill.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), through its Toxicological Profile for Mercury
(11), developed 0.3 ug/m3 as a chronic
inhalation minimal risk level (MRL) for long-term human
exposure to mercury vapor in ambient air. The basis of
this value was a study of workers (18) exposed to a time
weighted average of 26 ug/m3 for an average
of 15.3 years with an increase in intentional tremor
compared to the control group. Using this exposure value
as a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) and a
safety factor of 100 (10 for using a LOAEL and 10 for
human variability), ATSDR derived the MRL. The MRL is
defined as the level of mercury vapor below which a
person can be continuously exposed with no harmful
health effects.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
developing an inhalation reference concentration (RfC)(l9)
for elemental mercury, the summary of which will be in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for
elemental mercury by late summer 1992. The RfC
represents a health-based risk estimate of a daily
inhalation exposure to human population (including
sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without
deleterious non-cancer effects over a lifetime exposure.
The value of the RfC (0.3 ngm) is the same as the MRL
developed by ATSDR.
In this document, we evaluate exposure to mercury
from dental amalgam restorations through a review of the
significant literature that describes the evidence for
possible health effects produced from exposure to
mercury from this source.
Mercury Forms, Intake, Uptake, Metabolism, and
Excretion
Knowledge of the uptake routes and distribution of
mercury is essential to the critical interpretation of
data on levels of mercury in body tissues and fluids.
Mercury occurs in three chemical forms: elemental
(valance 0); inorganic (valance +1 and +2); and organic,
including alkyl (e.g., methyl) and aryl (e.g., phenyl)
mercury compounds. Each has different physical and
chemical properties, different rates of absorption and
excretion, and different distribution patterns. These
differences effect the toxicological effects of the
various forms of mercury.
In recent articles investigators have reviewed human
intake and retention of environmental mercury(10,12).
Vapor is the predominant chemical form of elemental
mercury found in air (20,21). While elemental mercury
has a high vapor pressure, which can result in a
concentration of about 50 mg Hg/m3 at 37°
Celsius, the concentration in ambient air is quite low.
Estimates of inhaled mercury from ambient air
(unadjusted for absorption) range from 40 to 120 ng/day
(10,12). Mercury in drinking water averages about 25 ng/L
(10,12) and is assumed to be primarily inorganic (Hg++)(10,12).
These two sources provide modest amounts of mercury
compared with dietary intake. Fish is a primary food
source of mercury, with 20% as inorganic mercury (Hg++)
and 80% as methylmercury (10,12). Other food sources
contain mercury, mostly in the form of inorganic mercury
(Hg ), in quantities which are substantial but difficult
to measure. Clarkson (10) estimates the total daily
absorption for all forms of mercury to be 2.3 ug/d
compared with 5.8 ug/d estimated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (12). Table 1 shows that about
two-thirds of the difference between these estimates
arises from EPA's allocation of ingestion of a larger
quantity of inorganic mercury (Hg ) from non-fish food,
while about one-third of it comes from the larger
quantity EPA allocates to methylmercury from fish
consumption. Other authors (22-24) have estimated intake
for all types of mercury from food, air, and water up to
15 ~g/day. The estimates for the daily intake for all
forms of mercury range from somewhat more than 2 µg to
15 µg. In persons for whom seafood comprises an
important source of protein, higher total mercury intake
is likely.
|
Table
1. Estimated Daily Absorption of Mercury |
| |
Hg0
ng/day |
Hg++
ng/day |
MeHg
ng/day |
Daily
ng/day |
Clarkson
et al. (10)
Air
Food
Water
Total
|
32
-
-
32
|
-
60
5
65
|
-
2160
-
2160
|
2257
2.3 ~µ/day |
EPA
(12)
Air
Food (fish)
Food (nonfish)
Water
Total
|
96
-
-
-
96
|
30
94
2000
5
2124
|
27
3572
-
-
3599
|
5837
5.8 µg/day |
| Other
Authors 22, 23, 24
15. µg/day
MeHG - methylmercury |
Methylmercury is produced by anaerobic bacteria
interacting with inorganic mercury in marine and
freshwater sediments. Monomethylmercury is believed to
bind to edible proteins in fish muscle. Because its
excretion by fish is extremely slow, the aquatic food
chain plays a major role in the accumulation process.
Such accumulation contributes to the mercury body burden
of people who frequently consume seafood products
(8,10-12). Methylmercury is rapidly absorbed into the
blood from the intestine, with about 90 percent of that
present in the blood found in the red blood cells (25).
Dietary methylmercury does not appreciably elevate
urine mercury levels, because about 90 percent of it is
excreted in the feces (10) with excretion beginning as a
biliary secretion. The methylmercury in bile is almost
completely reabsorbed in the intestine, forming an
enterohepatic cycle. Studies have shown (26,27) that it
is not until intestinal flora converts methylmercury to
Hg++ that mercury from this form can be excreted in the
feces. This is one reason why urine mercury is useful in
evaluating occupational exposure to inorganic mercury
(elemental vapor and inorganic salts).
In many studies of mercury exposure from amalgam
dental restorations, investigators report results as
total blood mercury. These data blur the distinction
between elevations of the inorganic mercury in blood
(due to exposure to mercury vapor from amalgam
restorations) and organic mercury in blood (due to
dietary exposures, usually methylmercury).
When high exposure has occurred (e.g., industrial,
seafood consumption), the elevation of total blood
mercury accurately reflects exposure, simply because the
predominant quantity of mercury in the blood, be it
organic or inorganic, is due to that high exposure.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in low-level
exposures, such as to mercury released from amalgam
dental restorations. Although some investigators have
reported that bacteria obtained from the oral cavity
have produced methylmercury in vitro (28), Eley and Cox
(29) found no evidence of its having been produced in
situ.
In this evaluation, we do not address toxicity or the
general metabolism of nonelemental forms of mercury (Hg,
Hg and organic) except when such information may aid in
an understanding of the metabolism, mechanism of action,
storage, or excretion of elemental mercury.
Elemental mercury, the focus of this document, makes
up about 50% by weight of dental amalgam when it is
mixed. Atoms of elemental mercury continuously diffuse
from the amalgam used as a dental restorative (30-33).
This molecular diffusion proceeds from the amalgam
through the amalgam oxide, the saliva, and the air
boundary layers into air flowing through the mouth. Each
of these layers provides some resistance to the movement
of elemental mercury from the amalgam into the mouth air
flow. Chewing, brushing, and other abrasive stress on
exposed surfaces of dental amalgam can alter the
protective characteristics of the oxide layer and
increase the rate at which elemental mercury is released
(30-32).
In addition to the release of elemental mercury to
the mouth air, amalgam also releases inorganic mercury
(Hg++) as a corrosion product (29,30). This
has also been demonstrated in vitro in both natural and
synthetic saliva (30). Both elemental and inorganic
mercury are introduced into the gastrointestinal tract
in saliva swallowed by persons with mercury containing
restorations. Under the aerated conditions of the upper
GI tract however, almost all the elemental mercury will
be converted to inorganic mercury (Hg ) (34).
During his 24-hour study, Berglund (33) collected
unstimulated saliva for about 40 minutes from each of
his subjects. He measured release rates of total mercury
into saliva that ranged from 1.8 to 13.8 ng Hg/min.
Making the assumption that this mercury release rate
from amalgam to saliva is constant throughout the day,
these data give a range for mercury ingestion from this
source from 2.6 to 19.9 µg for 24-hours.
Gastrointestinal absorption of inorganic mercury (Hg++)
is no more than 10 percent (12) and the absorption of
elemental mercury by this route is also very low (9).
Intestinal absorption of inorganic mercury is much
greater than that for elemental mercury. Thus, assuming
all the mercury represented by the Berglund data was
inorganic mercury would yield the greatest absorption
and would give an uptake range of about 0.18 to 1.4 µg/day.
Mercury vapor is absorbed rapidly into the
bloodstream and distributed to all major organs and
tissues (20); mercury is most highly concentrated in the
kidney, with other organs (brain, lung, liver,
gastrointestinal tract, and exocrine glands) also
showing varying degrees of elevated concentration
(9,10). Elemental mercury in blood can cross the
placenta and the blood-brain barrier, it can then be
oxidized to inorganic mercury (Hg+ ), which has a
limited ability to cross biological membranes. Thus,
mercury can be retained in brain (35) and fetal tissues
(36,37).
Recently, mercury metabolism in the body has been
reviewed (9), but it is still not completely understood.
Because initially, mercury accumulates in the kidney as
a complex with metallothionein, a sulfhydryl rich
compound produced in the kidney, a delayed increase in
urinary excretion occurs after exposure.
Cherian and coworkers (38) studied the excretion of
mercury in five human volunteers after a single exposure
to vapor at 100 ug/m3 for 14 to 24 minutes.
Using 197Hg and 203Hg to trace the
distribution and release of mercury from the body, the
investigators found that during the first week after
exposure about 11 percent of the absorbed dose of
mercury was excreted, predominantly in the feces. During
a skin absorption study, Hursh and coworkers (39) found
that this predominance of feces-to-urine excretion
continued for 10 to 20 days after a single exposure to
mercury vapor. Tejning and Ohman (40) found in workers
exposed to mercury vapor for long periods that urinary
excretion exceeded fecal excretion by a 60-to-40 ratio.
Hursh and coworkers (20) measured the clearance of
mercury vapor in five human volunteers, using
radioactive mercury. These investigators found a
biphasic clearance, with the slower fraction having an
average whole-body half-life of 58 days for these
subjects. Because of the physical half-life of the
isotope used and the low dose, these investigators could
not evaluate the possibility of an even longer half-life
phase in the clearance of mercury from the body.
There is also evidence that mercury vapor is excreted
in the exhaled breath after inhalation exposure. Hursh
coworkers (20) found that about 7 percent of the
absorbed dose of inhaled mercury vapor was exhaled
within three days. On the basis of the half-life of
mercury exhalation, these investigators believed that
loss of mercury by exhalation would be insignificant
within 1 week of a single exposure (38). Because persons
with dental amalgam restorations continuously inhale
mercury vapor, these data suggests that their exhaled
breath always contains a small quantity of mercury vapor
excreted from their lungs. However, this contributes
only a very small amount to the total mercury vapor
present in the exhaled breath of persons with dental
amalgam restorations.
Elemental mercury dissolves in lipids and readily
diffuses across cell membranes. Once within the cell, it
is oxidized to inorganic mercury (Hg++ ) by
catalase enzymes (41) present in red blood cells, brain,
liver, lung, and probably the cells of all other
tissues. Inorganic mercury (Hg++) readily binds to
tissue ligands, which may explain why it accumulates in
various tissues. Kosta et al (42) found a nearly 1 to 1
molar ratio between mercury and selenium for those
organs which accumulate and retain mercury. This
relationship may represent a chemical form that
effectively removes mercury from the normal biological
turnover and hence play a significant role in mercury
accumulation for those organs.
Eventually the distribution of mercury in body
tissues obtained by inhaling mercury vapor approaches
the distribution of mercury obtained by ingesting
inorganic mercury (Hg +), except that levels in the
brain are greater when the mercury is inhaled. Animal
data (43,44) show that upon initial exposure the amount
of mercury in the brain is about 10 times greater when
the exposure is to elemental mercury vapor than when
exposure is to inorganic mercury (Hg+ ). Human autopsy
data (45) show that mercury concentrations in brain
tissues are greater in persons with amalgams compared
with concentrations for those without them. The human
autopsy data, however, represent the accumulation of
mercury from long-term, low-level exposure to all forms
of mercury.
Evidence suggests that the neurological effects
produced by exposure to mercury vapor results from its
oxidation to the divalent mercury ion in brain tissue
and the ensuing interaction of these mercuric ions with
enzyme sulfhydryl groups thereby inhibiting their
function (46).
An example of the role played by enzyme inhibition in
mercury accumulation is ethanol's ability to inhibit
catalase oxidation of elemental mercury (47,48), which
results in decreased blood mercury concentrations
(49,50) as well as lower tissue levels (51) in persons
inhaling mercury vapor. Ethanol also enhances reduction
of Hg++ to elemental mercury both in vitro
(52,53) and in viva (54,55). Clarkson and coworkers (10)
postulates that ethanol inhibits catalase activity,
which oxidizes elemental mercury, thereby shifting the
equilibrium toward elemental mercury and increasing the
amount of mercury available to migrate through the cell
membrane. This postulate has been supported by in vitro
data which show that other catalase inhibitors also
increase the volatilization of mercury vapor from
tissues (52).
Human Exposure to Mercury from Dental Amalgam
Within the past decade, investigators have
demonstrated higher levels of mercury vapor in the oral
cavities of persons with amalgam restorations compared
to with levels for persons without such fillings.
Mercury vapor in humans has been sampled in exhaled
breath (32,56,57), in the oral cavity with the mouth
open (58 60) or closed (61,62), and through a catheter
placed in the trachea via a bronchoscope (62). These
data suggest (59) that mercury is continuously released
in the oral cavity from amalgam dental restorations. The
rate release is dependent upon many factors including:
area, age, and composition of the amalgam, as well as
the quality of the surface oxide layer.
Numerous investigators have demonstrated increased
intraoral mercury vapor concentration especially after
occlusal surfaces were stressed by chewing or tooth
brushing (32,33,56,57,59,61,62). Intraoral mercury vapor
levels were directly correlated with the number of
amalgam fillings(56,57,61). A positive correlation was
obtained between surface area or number of amalgams and
mercury levels in body fluids (59,61-64) and human
autopsy tissue samples (51,45). Estimates of the daily
uptake from the inhalation of mercury vapor from dental
amalgams suggest that amalgams may be the largest source
of mercury in persons without occupational exposure
(10,65,66). Details relevant to the routes, rates of
uptake, distribution patterns of mercury, and the
long-term health effects from or presence of dental
amalgams are incomplete.
Factors Affecting Estimates of Daily Intake of
Mercury Vapor From Dental Amalgam
Estimating daily intake of mercury from dental
amalgams requires a knowledge of both the rate and
duration of vapor production. Most data on intraoral
levels of mercury vapor are based on a small series of
samples after controlled stimulation of the amalgam
surface. Several studies focused on mercury levels
obtained after stimulation by gum chewing or tooth
brushing as an estimate of the stimulated rate for three
meals and three snacks per day. Data by Berglund (33)
suggest, however, that such estimates are high because
the rate of mercury vapor production following gum
chewing exceeded that following a typical meal. Bergland
(59) also found that the amount of mercury produced from
amalgam restorations into the oral cavity is essentially
independent of air flow over a wide range of flow
values.
Fifty percent of the intraoral mercury vapor is the
upper limit of the range used to estimate the amount
inhaled (the rest is lost to exhalation). The lungs
absorb about 80 percent of mercury vapor present in
inhaled air (20,21). Most of this mercury vapor diffuses
directly and rapidly across the alveolar membrane into
the blood, and only a small fraction is deposited in
pulmonary tissues.
Any corrections for breathing style should include
the fraction of time spent inhaling through the mouth.
In the studies reviewed, investigators estimating
exposure have usually included corrections for the ratio
of time spent in oral respiration and the percentage of
lung absorption. However, the values used by some of
these researchers for the ratio of oral to nasal
breathing may not be appropriate. Niirumma et al. (67)
have shown that a split in air flow occurs in normal
augmenters (people who normally breath through their
nose but augment ventilation by employing mouth
breathing at high ventilation rates) when the minute
ventilation rate exceeds approximately 35L/min At 35
L/min, the nasal portion of the minute volume decreases
to 57 percent of the total minute ventilation.
Intraoral Mercury Vapor Production and Estimation of
Daily Intake
Several studies have measured the mercury vapor
released from amalgam dental restorations before and
after gum chewing or brushing. On the basis of these
measurements, the investigators and others have
estimated the daily absorption of mercury vapor by
inhalation. Table 2 (next page) presents these estimates
of daily mercury absorption from dental amalgam
restorations developed by the researchers whose work has
been reviewed in this document. These estimates range
from 1.24 to 27 µg/day.
Gay and coworkers (32) measured total mercury
recovered in the exhaled breath of subjects over 10
exhalations. The mercury recovered from those with the
amalgam fillings ranged from 14 to 22 ng/10 breaths
before stimulation and increased to 64 to 244 ng/10
breaths after stimulation by chewing gum for 15 minutes.
The increase was inversely proportional to the length of
time since the most recent dental restoration had been
put in place. Two subjects without amalgams had showed 1
and 6 ng/10 breaths both before and after chewing.
|
Table
2. Estimates of Mean Daily Elemental
Mercury Uptake from Dental Amalgam Restorations |
|
Principal
Author |
Reference |
Number of
Surfaces |
Mercury
µg/day |
Patterson
Langworth
Berglund
Vimy
Clarkson
Svare (1)
Vimy (1)
Abraham (1)
Patterson (1)
Mackert
Vimy (3)
Langworth |
(57)
(62)
(33)
(58)
(64)
(56)
(58)
(61)
(65)
(68)
(58)
(62) |
NR
8 -54
13 -48
1 -16
NR
1 - 16
0.2 –4.2 (2)
NR
1 - 16
8 - 54 |
27.0
3.0
1.7
19.8
17.5
2.9
4.4
2.5
1.24
3.0 |
1 Clarkson's estimate based on
these data
2 Occlusal surface area in cm2
3 Mackert’s estimate based on these data
Svare and coworkers (56) measured mercury levels in a
3 liter exhalation study of 40 subjects with up to 21
amalgams and in 8 subjects without amalgams. The
investigators found that resting levels of mercury vapor
were higher in the oral cavities of those with amalgam
fillings (means 0.88 ug/m3 versus 0.26 ug/m3).
They observed a fifteen-fold increase (mean 13.74 µg/m3)
in oral mercury levels in those with amalgams after 10
minutes of stimulation by gum chewing. The mercury vapor
levels in expired air for those subjects without amalgam
fillings decreased to 0.13 ug/m3 after a
similar period of chewing. For patients with amalgam
fillings, the increase reported was proportional to the
number of their amalgams.
Abraham and colleagues (61) assessed intraoral
mercury levels in 47 subjects with and in 14 subjects
without dental amalgams. The investigators used a
mercury detector to measure mercury in air from an
external source flushed through a two-holed stopper held
between the lips while the subject breathed through the
nose. Before stimulation by chewing gum, those with
amalgam fillings had a mean intraoral mercury
measurement of 2.24 ng/15 sec compared with 1.13 ng/15
sec for subjects without amalgams. After stimulation for
3 minutes at a rate of 120 chews per minute, the mean
mercury level increased to 18.97 ng/15 sec (an over
eight-fold increase) for those with amalgam fillings
while the mean mercury level for subjects without
amalgam remained unchanged at 1.06 ng/15 sec. Oral
mercury levels correlated with the number and surface
area of dental amalgams.
Vimy and Loscheider (60) measured intraoral mercury
levels among 35 subjects with amalgams and 11 subjects
without amalgams. Subjects were asked to refrain from
all oral stimuli for 1 hour before the sampling.
Sampling consisted of rapidly moving a tube attached to
a mercury detector around the open mouth for 20 seconds.
The mean intraoral Hg levels for subjects with amalgams
was 4.91 ug/m3 before chewing and 29.10 ,ug/m3
after chewing gum for 10 minutes. For subjects without
dental amalgams, the unstimulated rate was 0.54 ug/m3,
which did not change significantly after stimulation.
The total number of amalgam surfaces showed a positive
correlation with stimulated mercury levels, whereas the
total number of occlusal amalgam surfaces showed a
positive correlation with both unstimulated mercury
levels and stimulated mercury levels.
In a follow-up study, Vimy and Lorscheider (58)
measured intraoral mercury levels at 5 minute intervals
during 30 minutes of continuous gum chewing and for 90
minutes thereafter. These data were integrated to obtain
the area under the curve. The investigators estimated
daily exposure by assuming a respiratory volume of 6
liters per minute, 80 percent absorption of mercury
vapor by the lung, an oral to nasal breathing ratio of
50 percent while chewing and 35 percent after chewing,
and stimulation periods corresponding to three meals and
three snacks per day. On the basis of collected data,
mercury generation ascribed to these periods of eating
comprised 135 minutes of chewing and 540 minutes of
decreasing vapor release following stimulation.
Further, the investigators obtained an estimate of
the average intake from amalgams of 19.8 ug/day for all
subjects (1-16 amalgams) and 29.24 payday in subjects
with 12 or more dental amalgams. Several investigators
have documented that Vimy and Lorscheider's assumption
relating sample collection rate to physiologic
ventilation rate was erroneous (59,62,68). Vimy and
Lorscheider's estimate of daily intake of mercury from
dental amalgam may be high by a factor of 16 (68-70).
Mackert (68) calculated a value of 1.24 µg/day using
the data of Vimy and Lorscheider for all subjects and
1.83 ug/day for those subjects with 12 or more dental
amalgams.
Patterson and coworkers (57) measured elemental
mercury levels in expired air. Subjects exhaled at about
2 liters per minute before and after tooth brushing.
Samples were analyzed with a photoaccoustic mercury
detector. Of a total sample of 172 subjects (including 5
without amalgams) studied, only 106 (including 2 without
amalgams) provided expired air both before and after
stimulation. In a subgroup of 104 subjects (2 without
dental amalgams) the investigators reported a mean Hg
concentration of 1.9 ng/L before stimulation. After
tooth brushing for 1 minute, the mean Hg concentration
was 8.2 ng/l. In a subgroup of 94 subjects for whom the
number of amalgam tooth surfaces was known (but not
reported), the correlation coefficient for the number of
tooth surfaces versus the concentration of Hg in expired
air increased from r = 0.41 before stimulation to r =
0.63 after stimulation. On the basis of the value
obtained for the mercury concentration before
stimulation for the upper tenth percentile of 172
subjects, the investigators estimated uptake of mercury
from amalgams at 27 ug/day. Because of the way the
mercury vapor measurements were performed, however, the
estimates of Patterson et al. are probably at least a
factor of six too high (68).
Using data from several of the previously described
studies, Clarkson and colleagues (65) estimated the
total daily mercury vapor absorption from dental amalgam
restorations by assuming an equivalent of 4 hours per
day at a constant, fully stimulated rate, 50 percent
loss to exhalation, 80 percent uptake by the lung, 100
percent oral breathing during stimulation and 50 percent
oral breathing after stimulation. Using these criteria
and data from four published studies they found 2.5 ug
(57), 2.9 ug (58), 8.0 ug (61), and 17.5 ug (56),
respectively. However, some of the daily dose estimates
required major assumptions because the original authors
had not supplied crucial information on their
experimental methodology, such as the flow rate of
exhaled air through the mouth The actual daily doses are
probably lower than these estimates.
Langworth and coworkers (62) used an elemental
mercury detector to measure intraoral and intratracheal
mercury levels after tooth brushing among 10 subjects
with a mean of 25 amalgam surfaces. Subjects were
instructed to breathe slowIy, but not at a defined
ventilation rate. Tracheal concentrations during
inhalation were below the instrumental detection limit
of 1 ug/m3 for five subjects and ranged from
1-6 ug/m3 for the remaining five subjects.
The mean oral mercury level after stimulation was 56.4
ug/m3. To estimate the daily mercury intake
from dental amalgams, the investigators assumed a total
stimulated period of 4 hours per day a a tracheal air
concentration of 2 ,µg Hg/m3, a
nonstimulated period of 20 hours per day at a tracheal
air concentration of 0.4 µg Hg/m3, a
ventilation of 10 m /day, 50 percent oral respiration,
and 80 percent absorption of mercury by the lung. These
values gave an estimated intake of 3 ug/day.
Berglund (33) measured intraoral mercury among 15
subjects with more than 9 occlusal amalgam surfaces and
5 subjects without amalgams for a 24-hour period during
which they followed a prescribed schedule of diet and
tooth brushing. These subjects had no prior occupational
exposure, and those with amalgams placed within the past
year were excluded. Subjects estimated their fish
consumption to assess variations in environmental
exposure to mercury. Intraoral air was sampled for
2-minute periods every 30 to 45 minutes for 24 hours.
Samples were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometry,
and the mercury produced per of unit time was
calculated. The area under the time-concentration curve
was integrated to obtain the amount released daily for
each individual. The
daily intake of mercury from dental amalgams was
estimated by assuming 80 percent absorption by the lung
and 50 percent loss to exhalation. Oral respiration
ratios of 0.4 percent at rest, 58 percent during
conversation, and 17 percent during sleep were each
applied evenly to one third of the total daily rate of
release. Berglund calculated the mean daily dose of
inhaled mercury vapor from dental amalgams to be 1.7 µg
with a range from 0.4 µg to 4.4 µg. The daily dose was
not significantly related to the occlusal surfaces or to
the total number or area of amalgams surfaces.
Mercury Levels in Body Fluid
Abraham and coworkers (61) measured blood mercury
levels in 47 medical students with amalgam fillings and
14 students without dental amalgams. Morning baseline
blood mercury levels were 0.7 µg/L for those with
amalgam fillings compared with 0.3 µg/L for subjects
without amalgams. Blood mercury levels correlated with
both the amalgam surface area and the number of
amalgams. Subjects were surveyed for 22 risk factors
that might correlate with blood mercury levels,
including occupational and home exposure, seafood
consumption, chewing habits, smoking, alcohol
consumption, and medications. A univariate model was
constructed for each of the dependent variables, and the
only one of these 22 factors found to correlate with
blood levels was teeth grinding.
Snapp and colleagues (64) studied 5 men and 5 women
for 4 to 18 weeks (median, 6.6 weeks) to establish
baseline blood mercury levels before all dental amalgams
were removed. The subjects selected had no current
occupational exposure to mercury and reported eating
little or no fish or seafood. All the subjects were
asked to abstain from eating seafood while enrolled in
the study, and all but one complied. The mean baseline
blood mercury level across all subjects was 2.18 µg/L
before the amalgam fillings were removed. Mercury levels
were found to correlate with the number of occlusal
amalgam surfaces and the total number of amalgam
surfaces. After the amalgam fillings had been removed,
weekly blood sampling continued until data analysis
demonstrated that each individual's blood mercury
concentration had changed from the baseline value with a
95 percent confidence level. The average decrease in
blood mercury level, based on the final mercury level
from each subject, was 1.13 ug/L. The investigators,
using a steady state equation, estimated a daily dose of
1.3 µg mercury from amalgams before removal. Because
the post-removal mercury data show a continuing decline,
this dose is probably an underestimate of the daily
mercury intake.
Molin and coworkers (71) demonstrated the effect of
amalgam restorations on mercury levels in body fluids
after the restorations had been removed. For subjects
studied before and after the amalgam was removed, the
investigators determined that removal of this mercury
source resulted in a decrease in mercury levels in both
plasma and urine. Average plasma levels decreased from
0.9 ug/L, as measured 3 to 4 months before removal to
less than 0.5 µg/L 12 months after removal. These
researchers also found that the urinary mercury levy
decreased during this period from a level of 1.00 µmol
Hg/mol Cr measured 3 months before amalgam removal to
0.27 µmol Hg/mol Cr 12 months after removal.
In the study by Berglund (33), a morning urine sample
was obtained from 15 subjects with and 5 subjects
without dental amalgams. Those subjects with mercury
amalgam restorations had an average creatinine-corrected
urine mercury concentration of 1.27 umol Hg/mol Cr
compared with 0.22 µmol Hg/mol Cr for those without
amalgam fillings. In this study, urine mercury levels
were not found to correlate with the estimated daily
dose nor with the total or occlusal amalgam surface
area. Because in nonoccupationally exposed individuals
urine mercury concentrations reflect dietary exposure to
inorganic mercury (which was estimated but not excluded
for this study), further study is needed to assess the
contribution of amalgam mercury to urine concentrations
and renal load.
Olstad and coworkers (63) studied 59 students with a
mean 5.8 amalgam surfaces and 14 students without dental
amalgams (5 previously had amalgams that were
exfoliated) from the sixth grade class of two elementary
schools in Norway. Mercury data were from morning urine
spot samples corrected for creatinine clearance. Mercury
levels for those with amalgam fillings were higher (0.58
versus 0.17 nmol/mmol Cr) than for subjects without
amalgams. Creatinine adjusted mercury levels correlated
with quantitative estimates of dental amalgams.
Fosten (72) reported on the measurement of mercury in
blood samples from 35 patients at a dental clinic in
Finland. These patients had self-reported subjective
symptoms suggestive of mercury toxicity, but no clinical
diagnosis. Each patient had a minimum of 10 occlusal
amalgams. Blood samples, drawn l5 minutes after the
subject chewed paraffin for a period of 30 to 60
minutes, were examined by cold vapor atomic absorption
spectrometry (AAS) for both total mercury and inorganic
mercury levels. The results show an average total blood
mercury level for the subjects to be 4.0 ug/L and an
average inorganic blood mercury level of 1.79 ug/L.
These results showed no increase in the total mercury
blood levels compared with an average total mercury
blood levels in the Finnish population of 3.7 µg/L.
About half the blood mercury in this study group
consisted of inorganic mercury, a portion of which
probably originated from dental amalgams. Because no
efforts were made to limit occupational or dietary
exposure, it is difficult to assess what proportion of
the exposure might be accounted for by environmental
sources.
Table 3 shows a summary of the study findings on
mercury in blood and urine. The blood values are about
twice as high for subjects with amalgams as for those
without amalgams. The urine results show a range of
about 3.5 to nearly 6 times higher values for those with
amalgams compared with those without amalgams. In the
amalgam removal study, the decrease in blood mercury
value was almost by a factor of 2 within the 1-year
follow-up period. During the same period, the reduction
in urine mercury was by a factor of 3.7.
|
Table
3. Total Mercury Levels |
|
Principal
Author |
Reference |
With
Amalgams |
Without
Amalgams |
| |
|
Blood Levels |
| |
|
µg/L |
µg/L |
| Abraham |
(61) |
0.7 |
0.3 |
| Forsten |
(72) |
4.0 |
NS |
| Forsten |
(72) |
1.791 |
NS |
| |
|
Amalgam Removal |
| |
|
Before |
After |
| Snapp |
(64) |
2.18 |
1.05 |
| Molin |
(71) |
0.9 |
0.5 |
| |
|
Urine Levels |
| |
|
nM/mM |
nM/mM |
| Olstad |
(63) |
0.58 |
0.17 |
| Berglund |
(33) |
1.27 |
0.22 |
| |
|
Amalgam Removal |
| |
|
Before |
After |
| Molin |
(71) |
1.00 |
0.27 |
1 Inorganic mercury only
NS - None Studied
Human Uptake
Nylander and coworkers (51) measured tissue levels of
mercury in 34 subjects, 26 with amalgams and 8 without
amalgams. These subjects, victims of sudden and
unexpected death, were available for autopsy at the
county coroner's office in Stockholm, Sweden. Excluded
were subjects with evidence of tooth extractions in the
previous 12 months. For 26 subjects, the mean number of
amalgam surfaces was 15.8 and the mean number of
amalgams was 9.3. Total mercury was measured by neutron
activation analysis, which has a detection limit of
about 0.2 to 0.3 ng Hg/g wet tissue. Mean mercury levels
reported for tissue samples from the occipital lobe
cortex (34 subjects), cerebellar cortex (19 subjects),
and semilunare ganglion (14 subjects) were on a wet
weight basis 10.9 ng Hg/g, 11.2 ng Hg/g, and 4.0 ng
Hg/g, respectively.
The only tissue for which sample results were
reported for all subjects was the occipital lobe cortex.
The authors found no correlation between age and total
mercury in the occipital lobe cortex. Total mercury in
the occipital lobe
correlated significantly with the number of amalgam
surfaces. This correlation increased in a subset of 25
subjects that included three individuals who were
electricians (possible occupational exposure), but
excluded 9 suspected of alcoholism (2 of whom had no
amalgams). The mean total mercury -concentration for
this tissue for 17 subjects with amalgams (mean number
of surfaces 23.3), excluding chronic alcohol abusers and
electricians, was 13.7 ng Hg/g wet weight and 6.5 ng
Hg/g wet weight for 6 subjects without them.
Eggleston and Nylander (45) analyzed brain tissue
specimens of 83 victims of sudden, unexpected death,
which they received from the Los Angeles county
coroner's office. In an effort to eliminate the
possibility of a recent tooth extraction, the
researchers chose control subjects with 0-1 amalgam
surfaces and at least 14 verifiable posterior occlusal
tooth surfaces. A minimum of 10 posterior occlusal teeth
and 5 or greater occlusal amalgam surfaces were required
for inclusion in the amalgam group. ATI intermediate
group comprised subjects with 1.5 to 4 amalgam surfaces.
Total mercury levels were analyzed blindly by neutron
activation analysis (NAA). Mercury levels correlated
with the number of amalgam surfaces for both the amalgam
and intermediate groups. Tissue samples from 77 subjects
were analyzed by cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA).
The results from NAA averaged more than 3.7 times higher
than those obtained by CVAA. The discrepancy between
these two methods, which usually show closer agreement,
casts some doubt on the reliability of these data. The
authors could not control for potential confounding
factors by other sources of mercury exposure, such as
occupation, diet, and exfoliated primary teeth.
In a study of patients with Alzheimer's disease (73),
investigators reported higher mercury levels among both
patients and control subjects than were found among
subjects with or subjects without amalgams in either
general population study (45,51), but lower than the
levels found in a study of dental workers (74). Average
mercury levels found in dental workers (74) were the
highest, probably reflecting their occupational
exposure. The results of this study (73) were
confounded, however, by the presence of individuals in
both the amalgam and non-amalgam group with medical
diagnoses for diseases that could alter the tendency to
accumulate mercury in the tissues.
Table 4 shows the average mercury concentration
reported in the occipital cortex reported by these
investigators (45,51,73,74). In all these studies, the
number of subjects was small and the occupational
history of only a few subjects was known. The subject's
history of amalgam use was also unknown, although in
some studies investigators made an effort to exclude
those with evidence of tooth extractions within a year
of autopsy. This was done in an effort to eliminate
persons from whom teeth possibly containing amalgams had
recently been removed. At autopsy, persons in the two
general population studies (45,51) with 5 or more
amalgam surfaces had from 2.4 to 2.9 times as much
mercury in their occipital cortex as the respective
control groups with 1 or fewer amalgam surfaces.
However, Matsuo et al. (75) have pointed out that the
differences may have largely been due to tissue
preparation artifacts (preferential loss of organic
mercury because of the formalin fixation technique
used). Matsuo et al. found 0.8 of the total mercury was
organic mercury in brain tissue from Japanese subjects.
Using this value, the calculated difference between the
amalgam and non amalgam subjects in the Eggleston and
Nylander study would have been an increase of 38 percent
rather than the 290 percent shown in Table 4. However,
the portion of total mercury to inorganic mercury in the
brain of persons in Japan is higher than that in the
brain of persons in the United States due to the greater
fish consumption in Japan so the 38% estimate is likely
on the low side.
|
Table
4. Mean Mercury Occipital Cortex
ng/g wet weight |
| |
Number of |
|
Principle Author |
Reference |
Samples |
Surfaces |
ng/g |
Nylander(1)
Nylander (1)
Eggleston
Eggleston
Eggleston
Ehmann
Ehmann (2)
Nylander (3) |
51
51
45
45
45
73
73
74 |
6
17
16
16
51
12
5
8 |
0 (4)
7-41
0-1 (4)
1.5 - 4
5 -14.5
NR (4)
NR
NR - 40 |
6.5
13.7
3.8
6.6
11.2
19.0
26.4
61.0 |
1 Excluding persons with suspected alcoholism
and electricians
2 Alzheimer’s disease patients
3 Dental workers
4 Controls
NR - Not Recorded l
In a study by Nylander and colleagues (74), samples
of tissue from the occipital cortex, pituitary gland,
renal cortex, olfactory bulbs, thyroid gland and liver
were collected from autopsies of 8 dental staff members
and 27 controls. Results of sample analysis from each of
the tissues were not reported for each of the subjects.
Neutron activation analysis was used to examine samples
for total mercury content. Table 5 shows the mercury
concentrations from the dental staff and controls
(including those without amalgams) for the pituitary
gland, occipital cortex, and renal cortex. Autopsied
material from the olfactory bulbs showed low mercury
concentrations for both groups. A linear correlation
between total mercury in the pituitary gland and number
of amalgam surfaces was obtained with data from the
control group r = 0.53). When the data from individuals
in the control group without amalgams and two
individuals with employment history of possible mercury
exposure were excluded the correlation was improved (r =
0.65, p 0.01).
Nylander and colleagues (51) obtained total mercury
levels in the kidney cortex from seven subjects with and
five subjects without amalgams. The mean mercury level
among subjects with 11 to 33 amalgams was 433 ng Hg/g
wet weight compared with 49 ng Hg/g wet weight for
subjects without dental amalgams. The difference in mean
values was statistically significant by the student's
t-test (N = 12, p 0.02). The relation between the number
of amalgam surfaces and total mercury in the kidney
cortex has a regression coefficient of 0.56 with a two
tailed student's t-test of p (N=12). The investigators
identified type of food, especially fish, alcohol, and
smoking as potential confounding factors. The mean
mercury levels included levels obtained from three
subjects who were electricians and who therefore may
have had considerable occupational exposure to mercury.
Table 6 shows the mean total mercury results from a
subset of 12 subjects within this study (51). Comparing
the kidney cortex concentrations for subjects with
amalgams showed that the mean total mercury
concentration for non-alcoholic subjects was more than
three times that in tissue of suspected alcoholic
subjects. Comparing the kidney cortex concentrations
from subjects without amalgams showed that the suspected
alcoholic subjects kidney cortex contained about twice
as much total mercury as that for nonalcoholic subjects.
These results point to the need for researchers to have
additional data on the history of mercury exposure for
subjects from whom autopsy samples are obtained before
they can draw any conclusions about the magnitude of
environmental, dietary, and employment influence.
|
Table
5. Median Concentration of Mercury
ng/g wet weight |
|
Tissue |
Number
Examined |
ng/g
Controls |
ng/g
Dentists |
Pituitary
gland
Pituitary grand
Occipital cortex
Occipital cortex
Renal cortex
Renal cortex |
23
8
20
8
12
3 |
23
NA
10
NA
180
NA |
NA
815
NA
17
NA
1528 |
Nylander et al. (74) data
NA - Not Applicable
|
Table
6. Mercury in Human Kidney Cortex1
ng/g wet weight |
| |
Number of |
Mean
ng/g |
| |
Samples |
Surfaces |
All
controls
Alcoholics
Others(2)
All amalgams Alcoholics
Electricians
Others(2) |
5
2
3
7
2
3
2 |
0
0
0
11 - 33
4 - 22
11 - 33
16 - 21 |
49
69
36
433
181
447
665 |
1 Nylander et al. (74) data
2 Excluding persons with suspected alcoholism
and electricians
Animal Uptake of Mercury From Dental Amalgam
Tests in laboratory animals can provide insight into
the possible human response to chemical exposure.
However, if the route of exposure, the form of the
chemical, or the metabolic processes are different
between the animal and man, the results of such tests
must be interpreted cautiously.
Hahn and coworkers (76) measured tissue levels of 203Hg
in a 61-kg ewe 29 days after placement of 12 occlusal
amalgam fillings containing radioactive mercury. Teeth
containing amalgam were removed intact, and a whole-body
scintigram was obtained. Tissue samples were weighed at
autopsy, and isotope measurements were obtained. The
documented tissue levels of mercury are shown in Table
7. The authors identified three uptake routes of
amalgam-based mercury as 1) lung and tracheal mucosa, 2)
gastrointestinal tract, 3) oral mucosa, tooth root and
surrounding bone. The data from this study, however,
show only target tissues where mercury localized and not
the direction of movement. The principal organs to
rapidly accumulate mercury during this time period were
the liver and kidney. The stomach also showed
substantial mercury accumulation, showing the effect of
the large quantity of mercury passing through the
gastrointestinal tract, as shown by the mercury
concentration in the feces. While biliary excretion of
inorganic mercury occurs, the low level or mercury in
the blood (9 ng/g) shows that the quantity of mercury
available for excretion by this route is small compared
to the quantity in the feces (4489 ng/g). Thus, biliary
excretion contributes only a small portion to the
mercury in the feces of the sheep in this study.
After 29 days exposure to 12 dental amalgam
restorations, the sheep kidney contained more than 15
times the mercury found in human kidney samples (51)
from persons with dental amalgam restorations (range of
amalgam surfaces 11 to 33). However, the sheep occipital
cortex contained about the same concentration of mercury
(3.5 ng Hg/g) as found in the that tissue from humans
(3.8 ng Hg/g) with O to 1 amalgam dental restoration
(45). The data from liver, kidney, and feces shows that
a large quantity of mercury passed through the blood and
gastrointestinal tract of the sheep in only 29 days, but
that the brain absorbed only a small fraction.
In a later study, Viny and colleagues (77) placed 12
occlusal amalgams in the mouths of 5 pregnant ewes on
day 112 of the gestation period (normally 144 to 147
days). Blood, urine, amniotic fluid, and fecal samples
were obtained at intervals of 1 to 3 days. An average
intraoral mercury level of 44 µg Hg/m3 was
obtained for the five ewes, which the investigators
compared with the average vapor level of 43 to 45 µg
Hg/m3 found in a previous study of humans who
stimulated mercury release by gum chewing (58).
|
Table
7. Total Mercuric in Sheep Tissue1
ng/g wet weight |
| Tissue |
ng/g |
Whole
Blood
Urine
Occipital cortex
Frontal cortex
Pituitary gland
Tracheal lining
Tooth alveolar bone
Gum mucosa
Liver
Stomach
Feces
Kidney |
9.0
4.7
3.5
18.9
44
122
318
324
772
929
4489
7438 |
1 Single animal data, Hahn et al. (76)
The animals were killed at various times after the
amalgams were placed, and tissue samples were obtained.
Mercury levels in the sheeps' body fluids rose rapidly
during the first two days after placement. Whole blood
mercury levels reached a plateau in these animals about
30 days after amalgam placement. The investigators
measured total mercury concentrations in many maternal
and fetal tissues. Table 8 shows selected results from
various times during this study. Two days after birth,
milk samples contained up to 60 ng/g. Increased levels
of mercury were maintained in tissues throughout the
140-day duration of the study. These ranges represent a
collection of single samples from five different ewes
and five fetuses surgically removed at varying stages of
development.
Table 9 shows the approximate total mercury
concentration for various maternal and fetal tissues at
the end of the observation period. For ewes, that period
was 140 days after placement; for fetuses it was 41
days. For most maternal and fetal tissue, the mercury
concentration rose to the value shown within a 30 days
of amalgam placement and remained nearly constant during
the study. The mercury in three maternal tissues
(pituitary, stomach, and large intestine) was about 10
times higher early in the post placement period than at
the end of the study. After about 40 days exposure, both
fetal and maternal pituitary tissue had about the same
mercury concentration. During the next 100 days of
exposure, the mercury concentration in the maternal
pituitary tissue decreased by a factor of about 5. The
mercury concentration in maternal pituitary was greater
than 50 ng/g in a ewe whose tissue was assayed 29 days
after amalgam placement and 100 ng/g on day 73. The data
of Vimy and coworkers (77) shows that, for most sheep
tissues analyzed, the accumulation of mercury from
dental amalgams in both maternal and fetal tissue is
about equal. The major exceptions are maternal tissues
from the kidney, liver, lung, and the gastrointestinal
tract, which had mercury concentrations more than five
times greater than those in analogous fetal tissue.
|
Table
8. Total Mercury in Sheep Tissue1
ng/kg wet weight |
|
Tissue |
Days Postimplant |
Maternal |
Fetal |
Blood
Amniotic fluid
Kidney
Kidney
Liver
Liver
Pituitary
Occipital cortex
Thalmus
Placenta |
2
2
29 - 140
16 - 41
29-140
16 - 41
16 - 41
16 - 41
16 - 41
14 - 34 |
4
4
9000
>1000
1000
>500
<100
<10
10 |
16
NR
10 - 14
NR
100-140
<100
10
10
24 - 289 |
1 Vimy et al. (77)
NR - Not Reported
The mercury accumulation in tissue found in these two
studies (77,58) show similar results, with the mercury
concentration reaching a plateau in most tissue about 40
days after placement of the amalgam. The sheep kidney
showed 10 to 20 times as much mercury compared with
concentrations reported for kidneys from humans with
many dental amalgam restorations. However, brain tissue
mercury concentrations in the sheep were similar to
those in persons with few amalgam dental restorations.
Several factors may explain the relatively higher
levels of mercury detected in the sheep kidneys as
compared to human kidneys. These factors could include
1) the temporal relationship of the study to the
placement of 12 occlusal amalgam dental restorations at
one time 2) the test animals were followed only briefly
3) the chewing patterns of the remnants (sheep) and the
abrasiveness of the remnant diet are very different from
those of humans, and 4) the organ distribution of
mercury in the sheep appears to reflect gastrointestinal
uptake of either elemental or inorganic mercury rather
than lung uptake of mercury vapor. Therefore, the
results of these studies may not be relevant to humans.
These and other animal studies (43,78) have shown the
degree to which mercury released from dental amalgams
accumulates in various tissues. The researchers have not
attempted to evaluate tissue uptake in relation to toxic
effects such as neurotoxicity or other clinical
manifestations.
|
Table
9. Total Mercury in Tissue of Ewes
ng/g wet weight |
|
Tissue |
Maternal1 |
Fetal2 |
Kidney
Liver
Lung
Heart
Muscle
Fat
Cerebrum
Occipital cortex
Thalamus
Pituitary
Thyroid
Adrenal
Parotid
Gingivae
Stomach
Small Intestine
Large intestine
Colon |
9000
1000
<100
10
10
1
10
10
<50
10
10
10
100
100
100
<100
<100
<100 |
<100
130
<10
<10
<10
2
<10
10
10
100
10
<10
10
100
<10
10
10
10 |
Vimy et al. data (77)
1 Approximate value 140 days after amalgam
placement
2 Approximate value 41 days after amalgam
placement
Hazard Identification
A wealth of information (7-13,16) is available on
human intoxication by elemental mercury from industrial,
inadvertent, or deliberate exposures, both short- and
long-term, which have produced clinical signs and
symptoms of deleterious health effects. The EPA in its
review (12) stated that the scientific literature did
not identify a threshold urine value below which mercury
has no effect on psychomotor function. However, EPA
could not causally link the decrement in psychomotor
function to low urine mercury levels.
Acute exposure to high concentrations of mercury
vapor can lead to death from pulmonary failure (79-81).
However, mortality from acute exposure to mercury vapor
is unusual; it occurs primarily in homes, and is
associated with the recovery of precious metals. Some
investigators have reported neurological effects caused
by a brief but intense exposure to mercury vapor (82).
In a review, Jaffe and coworkers (83) noted that infants
4 to 30 months of age are more susceptible to mercury
intoxication than older children and adults. Among
children, exposure to elemental mercury can cause an
idiosyncratic reaction known as acrodynia, a syndrome
characterized by painful extremities, extreme
irritability, and pink rash on the fingers, toes, and
nose. An example of this disease was recently reported
by Agocs and colleagues (84) in a 4 year-old boy exposed
to mercury vapor released by an organic mercury
fungicide in the interior latex paint applied to the
walls of his home.
In most tissues, elemental mercury is readily
oxidized by catalases to inorganic mercury (Hg++);
therefore, assessing some of the effects of inorganic
mercury (Hg++) as part of this evaluation is
reasonable. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has
performed toxicity and carcinogenicity studies after
2-year gavage studies of mercuric chloride in 344/N rats
and B6C3F1 mice (85). The NTP review of the
results of these studies concluded that, on the basis of
increased incidence of squamous cell papillomas of the
forestomach in male rats, some evidence of
carcinogenicity existed. On the basis of the occurrence
of two renal tubule adenomas and one renal tubule
adenocarcinoma, equivocal evidence existed of
carcinogenic activity of mercuric chloride in the male
mice. Doses used were 1.25, 5, or 20 mg/kg/day. In the
male mice, the 5-mg/kg dose produced mercury
concentrations of 36,000 ng/g in the kidney, 3,000 ng/g
in the liver and about 100 ng/g in the brain. The kidney
concentration reported in these mice was more than 50
times that found by Nylander and colleagues in humans
with amalgams. The significance to humans of tumor
development in the rat forestomach is not well
understood.
In contrast to these findings are those of Cragle and
colleagues (86). The authors studied the mortality of a
cohort of 2,133 white males exposed to elemental mercury
vapor between 1953 and 1963 and "followed"
through 1978. The comparison group consisted of 3,260
workers employed at the same plant but without mercury
exposure. There was no statistically significant excess
mortality in the exposed group compared to the
nonexposed group. However, the mortality experience for
the comparison group showed statistically significant
increased standard mortality ratios (SMR's) computed
with the experience of the age-adjusted U.S white male
population for cancer of both 1) the lung and 2) brain
and other central nervous system CNS tissue. The SMR for
lung cancer among the mercury-exposed workers was
elevated compared with the U.S. white male population,
but the increase was not statistically significant. The
investigators concluded that exposure to mercury vapor
in the workplace was not related to any excess deaths
observed.
Exposure Assessment
Absorption of elemental mercury depends on the route
of exposure. Lung absorption of mercury vapor ranges
from 65 to 85 percent and depends on both the rate and
depth of breathing (20). In the literature we reviewed,
all estimates for daily uptake from mercury-containing
dental restorations were based on an 80 percent lung
absorption of mercury vapor. Absorption of elemental
mercury from the gastrointestinal tract probably less
than 0.01 percent (87). Skin absorption is low (9).
Hursh and coworkers (39), in a study of five male
volunteers, measured absorption of mercury vapor through
the forearm skin. On the basis of their measurements,
and exposure assumptions (air concentration of 50 µg/m3,
and a skin area of 18,000 cm2), these
investigators calculated a mean uptake of 10.4 µg/day
mercury by this route during an 8-hour period. Use of
the maximum measured absorption rate would nearly double
this daily rate. These investigators calculated that an
inhalation exposure from this same atmosphere would have
resulted in 40 times as much mercury absorption based
upon a respiration volume of 10 m3 for an
8-hour workday and 80 percent absorption.
Clarkson and colleagues (10) estimated that for the
general U.S. population "the dominant exposure (for
elemental mercury) is to mercury vapor from dental
amalgams." These authors, using other
researchers’ intraoral mercury data (56-58,61),
estimated the amount of elemental mercury absorbed from
dental amalgam restorations to range from about 2.9 to
17.5 1ug/day (2,900 to 17,500 ng/day). By comparison,
estimates of absorbed elemental mercury from ambient air
range from 32 to 96 ng/day.
The WHO provisional tolerable weekly intake for total
mercury is 300µg (300,000 ng), or 43µg/day (43,000 ng).
Table 10 shows a comparison of the calculated amount of
mercury absorbed by a person exposed to mercury vapor at
the OSHA PEL/NIOSH REL of 50µg/m3, the WHO
health based recommended occupational level guideline of
25µ/m3, the ATSDR MRL/EPA RfC of 0.3µg/m3,
and for skin exposure according to Hursh and coworkers
(39). The OSHA/NIOSH and WHO calculations each assume
exposure of 40 hours per week at a respiration rate of
15 m /day during the workday and no other exposure. This
workplace exposure was them divided by 7 to obtain the
average daily exposure rate. The calculation based on
the ATSDR MRL/EPA RfC assumes 24 hours of exposure with
a respiration rate of 20m3/day. Each of these
values is based on an assumption of 80-percent pulmonary
absorption for mercury vapor. In order to estimate the
total mercury absorbed from these various atmospheric
exposure, mercury absorbed through the skin should be
added to the amount calculated for inhalation. The
calculated inhalation uptake by a person from an 8-hour
exposure to air containing a mercury concentration equal
to the OSHA PEL/NIOSH REL and the WHO health-based
occupational limit are 10 and 5 times the WHO tolerable
daily dose respectively. The WHO provisional tolerable
weekly intake is about 10 times what one would receive
from breathing ambient air at the ATSDR MRL/EPA RfC.
|
Table
10. Calculated Mercury Absorption from Air |
|
Route/Source
of Exposure |
Air Concentration
µ/m3 |
µg/week |
µg/day |
Lung/work
Lung/work
Lung/home
Skin/work |
50
25
0.3
50 |
3000
1500
33.6
52 |
429
214
4.8
7.4 |
Work exposure—8 hours per day, 5 days per week,
ventilation rate 15 m3, assuming no other
mercury exposure
Home exposure ambient air—24 hours per day, 7
days per week, ventilation rate 20m3/day
Skin exposure—excludes respiration exposure,
Hursh et al. (39)
Table 11 shows estimated mercury absorption from
various sources presented in this document. The
estimated amount due to inhalation of elemental mercury
from dental amalgam restorations is much larger than
that from ambient air. It is in the range of that
estimated for both organic mercury and inorganic mercury
(Hg++) obtained from food (10,12). On the
basis of data from Berglund and colleagues (33), it is
also similar to the uptake of inorganic mercury (Hg++)
ingested in saliva.
Human Exposure and Response
Several epidemiologists have investigated mercury
exposure and its resultant health effects. Most of these
studies have focused on occupationally exposed workers
who were not in the dental health field. Generally,
results of dental health workers have shown that these
workers have higher levels of mercury exposure than the
general population, but lower levels than those of other
occupationally exposed workers.
Studies have documented neurophysiologic (88-90) and
renal changes (89) in exposed workers from both the
dental health providers and other populations. Moreover,
results of tests on central (91) and peripheral nerve
conductance (92) demonstrated some impairment of these
physiologic parameters in occupationally exposed groups.
Relatively few investigators have examined the potential
health effects of mercury in a nonoccupationally exposed
cohort (i.e., patients with amalgam fillings). Many of
the studies we discuss in the following paragraphs had
small sample sizes and may have lacked sufficient
statistical power to determine any differences between
the exposed and unexposed groups.
|
Table
11. Estimated Absorption of Mercury |
|
Source |
Type |
ng/day |
Ambient
air
Water
Food
Food
Saliva (1)
Air (2)
Amalgams (3)
Air (4) |
elemental
inorganic
organic
inorganic
inorganic
elemental
elemental
elemental |
32 - 96
5
2160 - 3572
60 - 2000
180 - 1400
4160 (5)
1240 - 29,000
429,000 (5) |
1 Mercury in saliva after Berglund (33)
2 At ATSDR's MRL/EPA RfC, respiration volume
20 m3/day
3 Studies reviewed in this document
4 Workplace at OSHA PEL, respiration volume
15 m3/8-hour day
5 See text for Table 10 for derivation of
values
Occupations with High Mercury Exposure
Langworth and colleagues (93) measured the blood and
urine mercury levels of 79 industrial workers who were
not occupationally exposed and 89 chloralkali, workers
who were occupationally exposed to elemental mercury.
Levels of the workers' fish consumption was determined
by questionnaire. The blood and urine mercury levels
were 4 and 11 times higher, respectively, among
occupationally exposed workers. They attributed the
lesser differences in blood mercury levels to
interferences from dietary exposure to methylmercury,
which preferentially binds to red blood cells. Among
unexposed workers, they found correlations between blood
mercury levels and fish consumption and between urine
levels and the number of amalgam surfaces. They did not
find such correlations in subjects occupationally
exposed to elemental mercury.
To determine whether short-term memory (STM) loss is
a neurotoxic effect of exposure to elemental mercury,
Smith and coworkers (88) conducted a study of mercury
cell chloralkali workers from four plants. Two measures
of STM were used, the Wechsler1 digit span
forward test, and a second test used to estimate a
worker's 50 percent threshold for correct serial recall.
The performance of 28 workers on the Wechsler digit span
forward test did not show any association with urinary
mercury exposure indices: the average urinary mercury
concentrations for 3, 6, 12, and 24 months before
testing. The average urine mercury values for these
workers' exposure indices were 175, 164, 139, and 119µg/L,
respectively.
In the more sensitive test of recall, conducted on 26
workers from 2 plants, investigators observed a
significant linear relationship between the subjects' 50
percent threshold spans and their 12-month average
urinary mercury concentrations (mean 182 µg/L). They
also found that increasing age has a similar effect on
STM capacity. The results showed that mercury exposure
sufficient to produce a 12-month average urine mercury
level of 200 µg/L produced the same effect on the
workers' STM span as increasing their age from 20 to 44
years.
1 In the Wechsler digit span forward test, the
subject is presented with a list of single digit numbers
(randomly selected with no repetitions) at the rate of
one digit per second. The subject attempts to repeat the
list in order. The first list begins with 3 digits, the
second 4, and so on up to 10. If at some list length the
subject does not recite the list correctly, the
experimenter presents a second list of the same length.
If the subject recites the second list correctly, the
test continues with a list one item longer. If the
subject makes an error on the second list, the test is
stopped. The subject's digit span forward is the length
of the last list that is correctly recalled.
In two separate plants, different from those in the
previous study, 60 volunteers also took the 50 percent
threshold span test. Reductions in STM capacity related
to the 12-month average mercury-in-urine level (mean 102
µg/L) similar to those in the fist plant were observed
among those with higher urinary mercury levels. The
authors cautioned that the size of the reduction in
memory span observed in these studies may be
underestimated. The possible underestimation of effect
results from some uncontrolled bias stemming from the
inherently better STM of younger workers who because of
their work assignment in the plants, also tended to have
the higher urinary mercury levels. Although
investigators used volunteers in this study and the
populations studied were relatively small, the results
were replicated in the two plants and are not likely to
be the result of study bias.
In a cross-sectional study design, Levine and
coworkers (92) evaluated peripheral nerve conduction
tests on 18 workers at a chloralkali plant. Normal
values were obtained from individuals aged 21 to 50 who
were in good health with no known neurological deficit.
Ulnar motor nerve normal values were obtained from 138
subjects and ulnar sensor nerve normal values from 82.
The 18 subjects volunteering for the study were
asymptomatic, and results of routine physicals conducted
by the industrial physician at the time of the study
were normal. Integrated mercury exposure was evaluated
by averaging urine mercury concentration for the exposed
subjects from the results of monthly urine tests from
the previous 3 years. The mercury exposure indices
covered from 3 to 36 months. Sensory distal latency
correlated significantly with more than half of the
urine mercury exposure indices used. Motor distal
latency also showed significant correlation with mercury
indices. These manifestations of toxicity were not
apparent through standard physical examinations.
This plant's mercury control program removes workers
from exposure when their spot urine mercury
concentration exceeds 500 µg/L. These investigators
concluded that the results of their study did not differ
substantially whether using as a measure of body mercury
concentration the number of months that urine mercury
concentration exceeded either 500 µg/L or 250 µg/L and
that their results offered no support for a threshold
effect in the peripheral nervous system. Thus the degree
of peripheral nerve involvement may relate to mercury as
quantified by time-weighted urine mercury
concentrations. Although the sample size in this study
was small, the study was apparently well conducted and
the findings correlate with measurable subclinical
effects at urine mercury levels below the threshold for
clinical effect of exposure to elemental mercury.
Piikivi and Tolonen (91) used a cross-sectional
cohort design to study the cerebral effect of long-term
(mean exposure time, 15.6 years) low-intensity exposure
to mercury vapor in a group of 41 chloralkali plant
workers and a group of age- and sex-matched wood
processing plant workers with no occupational exposure
to mercury. The time-weighted average concentration of
mercury in blood was computed from health records that
covered the period from 1969 until the study began in
1987. These investigators used the workers' long-term
average mercury level in blood and the ratio of mercury
levels in air to mercury levels in blood reported in the
literature (94) to estimate the exposure level of the
exposed group. On the basis of this relationship, they
reported that the long-term exposure level of the
chloralkali workers studied had been about 25µg/m3.
These investigators believe that long-term average
mercury levels in blood do not provide accurate
estimates of average long-term exposure because of the
short physical half-life of inorganic mercury in blood.
Thus, they chose to use blood values of mercury obtained
at the time of the physical examination to estimate the
long-term exposure of the persons studied. On the basis
of such single blood samples, the long-term average
exposure was estimated as about 25µg/m3 for
day workers and 15µg/m3 for the shift
workers. Comparison of computer-supported evaluation of
EEGs obtained from mercury exposed and control workers
showed those from the exposed group were significantly
slower and more attenuated. This difference was most
prominent in the occipital region, became milder
parietally, and was almost absent frontally. Although
the investigators found no concentration-response
relationship, they concluded that the slowing and
attenuation of computer-based evaluations of EEG
observed in workers related to chronic exposure to
elemental mercury at or below the current level that WHO
recommended not be exceeded. It is likely, however, that
the choice to define the long-term exposure on the
results of a single blood sample at the time of study
underestimated the actual long-term occupational
exposure. This historical exposure was most likely at
higher mercury vapor concentrations than those that
currently exist in modem chloralkali plants. Hence the
EEG effects they observed may have been the result of
higher long-term mercury vapor exposures than the 25µg/m3
they estimated.
Because concentrations in neither blood nor urine
accurately predict the concentration of mercury in the
brain, there is little reason to believe that either
measure reflects a dose-response relationship with EEG
alterations. Results of this study, however, suggest
that computer-based evaluations of EEGs may provide
relatively early evidence of subclinical indices of
neurotoxicity, but because the results also indicate
that mental strain caused by shiftwork exacerbated
disturbances in the EEGs, this method of evaluation
should be used only in carefully controlled situations.
Rosenman and colleagues (89) performed a
cross-sectional study using 42 workers employed at a
plant producing inorganic mercury compounds. Mercury in
blood and urine were sampled 4 months before and at the
time of testing. A questionnaire survey was used to
investigate worker's symptomatology, and standard
neurobehavioral, saccadic eye movement, ophthalmologic,
kidney function, and peripheral nerve conduction tests
were performed and evaluated. Several subjects did
complain of pain or numbness in their extremities.
Although this does not negate the implication that
peripheral nerve effects from mercury may occur, the
experimental design was flawed.
The investigators found the following: 1)
neuropsychological symptoms correlated with urinary
mercury and urinary n-acetyl G -D -glucosaminidase (NAG)
levels; 2) urinary NAG enzyme levels were increased
compared with those of historical controls and were
correlated with urinary mercury levels; 3) mean motor
nerve conduction velocity was slowed and was associated
with increases in urinary mercury levels and symptoms of
numbness or pain in the extremities; 4) all mercury
workers examined had lenticular opacities, but while
there was no correlation with mercury level in blood or
urine, these opacities are not found in the general
population; 5) more abnormalities were seen in the
saccadic eye movement of mercury workers than of the
historical controls, but there was no relationship with
mercury levels; 6) neurobehaviorial test scores were
decreased compared with scores for the historical
controls, but were not correlated with mercury levels.
Several factors make the results of the study by
Rosenman and coworkers difficult to interpret. The
questionnaire used in the study was not standardized and
the results were correlated with mercury in urine not
blood. More information on nerve conduction results is
needed; furthermore, the symptoms are difficult to
interpret. The eye findings for this small sample size
show the following: 1) there was no relation to mercury
levels, 2) the relationship to time on the job is
difficult to interpret because the investigators found
opacities in all workers examined, and 3) no specific
control subjects were in the study. Findings on saccadic
eye movement are not appropriately supported by
references and do not involve specific control subjects.
The subtle neurologic changes described are difficult to
interpret because the information given to support the
findings is not sufficient, or because the questionnaire
used to ascertain symptoms was not sufficiently
standardized.
Dental Occupations
Shapiro and colleagues (90) evaluated the potential
for a relationship between cumulative exposure to
mercury and chronic health impairment among 298 male
dentists. The authors measured the mercury levels at the
temple and wrist by x-ray fluorescence. The
investigators reported neither exposure nor excretion
data for these dentists. Peripheral nerve function was
measured by standard electrodiagnostic methods.
Neuropsychological tests used were the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the Bender-Gestalt
finger-tapping and grooved-pegboard tests. Two
independent judges blinded to the subjects' mercury
levels, scored the Bender-Gestalt test results. For more
than two thirds of the dentists, levels of mercury in
the temporal region and the wrist were below the level
detectable by the x-ray fluorescence technique (20µg/g
of tissue). About 13 percent of the dentists had mercury
values at the temple above 40µg/g.
Electrodiagnostic and neuropsychological findings for
23 dentists with mercury levels of more than 20µg/g
tissue mercury levels were compared with those of a
control group consisting of 22 age-matched dentists with
no detectable mercury levels. Eight (30 percent) of the
23 dentists with more than 40µg/g Hg/g in the temple
had polyneuropathies. The control group had no
individuals with polyneuropathies. This finding was
statistically significant (p = 0.008).
Electrodiagnosis is a sensitive technique that often
detects subclinical neuropathies in apparently
"normal" persons. The group with detectable
mercury also had mild visuographic dysfunction and more
self-reported distress symptoms than did the control
group. Despite these dysfunctions all subjects in this
study were apparently performing their professional
tasks adequately and did not show intellectual
impairment. Results of this well-designed and
well-executed study showed that those dentists who used
dental restorative materials containing mercury and had
detectable tissue levels of mercury also had measurable
biological dysfunctions.
Nilsson and coworkers (95) studied 505 persons
occupationally exposed to mercury while working at 82
dental clinics in northern Sweden. Controls were 41
persons without occupational exposure to mercury. These
groups were compared for urine mercury levels and
symptoms previously associated with mercury exposure.
The median mercury concentration in the workplace air
was 1.5µg/m3 for workers in public dental
care and 3.6µg/m3 for workers in private
dental care. The investigators did not explain why the
air values obtained during this study were lower than
the range of 20-40 µg/m3 reported from other
investigations of dental offices (96-100).
Urine mercury levels of dental personnel in the study
by Nilsson and colleagues were similar to those for the
general Swedish population. The investigators concluded
that for those individuals occupationally exposed, the
estimated burden of mercury from their own amalgam
fillings was similar to the burden from the working
environment. The prevalence of the four symptoms
investigated (i.e., loss of appetite, tremor, insomnia,
and anxiety) was less than 11 percent for both exposed
and unexposed study subjects. Results of this study also
showed no increase in the prevalence of these symptoms
in relation to concentrations of mercury in urine.
Nilsson and coworkers concluded that the
inconsistency between the findings of their study and of
other studies (90), which did show an association
between occupational exposures in dental offices and
neurotoxic effects may be due to two factors: 1) the
generally lower levels of occupational exposure to
mercury in Swedish dental offices, and 2) the less
sensitive measures of neurotoxicity that they (Nilsson
and colleagues) used. In addition, these findings are
difficult to evaluate because (Nilsson and colleagues)
did not use standardized questionnaires.
Naleway and colleagues (101) reported findings from
on-site screenings at the American Dental Association
1985 and 1986 annual sessions. These screenings were a
part of the health screening program (HSP) to identify
dentists having elevated concentrations of mercury in
their urine. Data generated from this study were used to
examine the relationship between elevated urinary
mercury levels, occupational exposure and kidney
dysfunction. Measurements of concentrations of beta 2
microglobulin in serum and urine and of creatinine in
serum, and also of creatinine clearance were used to
evaluate kidney dysfunction. The mean urinary mercury
values found in the 1985 and 1986 HSP were 5.8 µg Hg/L
and 7.6 µg Hg/L, respectively. For about 10 percent of
the subjects in the 1985 and 1986 studies, urinary
mercury concentrations were above 20 µg/L. No clear
relationship was demonstrated between elevated urinary
mercury concentrations and kidney dysfunction. The
reported absence of a clear relationship between urinary
mercury concentrations and potential kidney dysfunction
is in agreement with other findings at the mercury
concentrations measured.
Information on the professional exposure of the
subjects in the 1985 and 1986 HSP was obtained by
questionnaire. A follow-up questionnaire that addressed
psychological and neuropsychological symptoms was
provided to participants who had elevated urinary
mercury concentrations in the 1985 HSP. Analysis of
responses to these questionnaires provided three
significant relationships none of which were health
effects. These relationships were associated with the
following: 1) mercury/amalgam handling and skin contact,
2) the number of amalgams placed by the dentist, and 3)
the number of hours of practice per week
Hypersensitivity
If patients are sensitized to any of the components
of amalgam dental restorations or to their
corrosion/degradation products, they may have allergic
reactions. Most concern about hypersensitivity has
focused on the mercury component of amalgams. Mercury is
documented as an allergen (102,103); however, other
components of amalgams may also be involved.
A standardized dental test series has been developed
to screen for contact allergy to dental materials (104).
Using this screening technique, which includes 21
chemicals, 955 patients with a tentative diagnosis of
contact allergy to dental materials were tested at 16
dermatological clinics. Results of this screening show
that of this group less than 2 percent tested as
allergic to elemental mercury (105). Only a small
proportion of mercury-sensitized individuals respond
adversely to the placement of amalgam restorations. The
few case reports of adverse allergic reactions to
amalgam involve skin reactions, such as rashes and
eczematous lesions, which sometimes occur as tele-reactions,
that is, reactions occurring a distance from the
initiating site. Gingivitis and stomatitis may also
occur.
Vernon and coworkers (106) have reviewed 41 published
cases of allergy to amalgam. The reactions occurred 2 to
24 hours after the amalgam was placed. Some of these
cases went into remission even though the patient was
not treated, but most cleared up only after the amalgam
was removed. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (Type
I) have also been reported after amalgam restorations
have been removed and inserted (107,108). Documentation
of the etiology of the effect is often missing, and
verification is often based only on the remission of the
lesions following removal of the amalgam.
Olstad and colleagues (63) studied the relationship
of urine levels of mercury and non-specific allergies
and school absences among 73 sixth-graders. They found
no association between urine levels and either
parameter. Both measures, however, were non-specific and
based on self-reported information. Therefore, the
findings are inconclusive with regard to allergic
sensitivities.
Psychological Outcomes Associated with Mercury Levels
in Body Fluids and Tissues
Siblerud (109) studied urinary mercury levels and the
mental status of 50 college student volunteers with
amalgams and 51 with no dental fillings. The reported
mean level of mercury, 3.70 µg/L, for the amalgam group
was 201 percent higher than the 1.23 µg/L mean level
for the nonamalgam group. The mercury value reported for
hair samples from the amalgam group was 1.43 µg/g, or
26.5 percent higher than the comparable 1.13 µg/g for
the non-amalgam group. Both differences, however, were
statistically significant. Among those with amalgams,
the number of fillings correlated with both urinary
mercury (r = 0.46, p = 0.001) and hair mercury (r =
0.23, p = 0.09), supporting results previously reported
(74,91). Because hair reflects dietary intake of
methylmercury, its analysis will not likely provide a
very useful tool in evaluating exposure to mercury vapor
from amalgam dental restorations.
The students were also given a health questionnaire
to complete at home and another to complete while
waiting for the laboratory testing. Responses to the
first questionnaire showed amalgam subjects
significantly less happy and having less "peace of
mind" than the non-amalgam group. On the second
questionnaire, the amalgam group reported more emotional
symptoms and a lifestyle involving greater consumption
of sweets, cigarettes, alcohol, and coffee, but none of
the differences were statistically significant. No
information was provided on the reliability and validity
of the apparently non-standardized questionnaires used.
Thus, reliable conclusions cannot be drawn.
In a supplementary survey, Siblerud sent one of his
questionnaires to nearly 300 patients (average age, 40.4
years) whose amalgams had been removed. The 86 who
responded were asked to list mental health symptoms for
the year before the amalgams were removed and to
evaluate the symptoms after their removal. Most of the
patients were pleased with the results; they indicated
improvement in emotional factors such as depression,
irritability, and anger, and in general health status.
However, without appropriate controls, no definitive
conclusions can be drawn from this survey.
Findings of Mercury Residues in Neurological Patients
with Alzheimer's and Parkinson 's Diseases
Mercury concentrations have been studied in many
diseases, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson's,
Kawasaki's (110-113) and multiple sclerosis. The studies
of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease patients are
examples of studies of chronic diseases showing elevated
concentrations of mercury in tissue and fluid samples
compared with concentrations found in controls. Wenstrup
and coworkers (112) compared trace element
concentrations in the brains of 10 Alzheimer's disease
patients with levels of these elements in the brains of
12 age-matched controls (ages 59-83). These
investigators quantified 13 trace elements by neutron
activation analysis and found 5 statistically
significant differences relative to controls. Elements
showing elevated concentrations in Alzheimer's patients
were bromine in whole brain tissue and mercury in the
microsomal fraction of cells. Those showing diminished
concentrations were rubidium in whole brain, and in
nuclear and microsomal cell fraction, selenium in the
microsomal fraction of cells, and zinc in the nuclear
fraction of cells. Tissue for this study was collected
from the temporal cerebral hemisphere of patients and
controls. The investigators concluded that the most
important of the observed imbalances was the elevation
of mercury among Alzheimer's disease patients.
Sources of mercury among these Alzheimer's patients
are unknown. The investigators, however, suggested
dental amalgams and environmental sources, such as
seafoods as possible contributing sources, but they did
not report data on the number of amalgams in the
subjects studied. Several mechanisms were suggested by
which mercury might alter brain function in Alzheimer's
disease; for example, in rats, mercury has caused
decreases in protein synthesis and in levels of RNA and
DNA. These investigators (113,114) and others (115,116)
have found a marked reduction of protein synthesis in
the brains of Alzheimer's patients. They (113,114)
suggest that an elevated concentration of mercury could
inhibit protein synthesis, resulting in neuronal
degeneration and cell death.
Investigators have reported differences of trace
element concentrations in brain tissue of Alzheimer's
patients (73,117,118) as compared to that of
non-Alzheimer patients. At this time, no studies have
demonstrated whether mercury deposition is a causal
event or a result of the brain's degeneration from the
disease itself (i.e., disease related changes in
transport mechanism).
Ngim and Devathason (119) designed a hospital-based
case-control study using 54 patients having Parkinson's
disease and 95 controls matched for age. The results of
the study show a positive correlation of the presence of
mercury in blood, urine, and hair with Parkinson's
disease. These investigators, however, did not present
any information on either occupational exposure or the
presence or absence of dental amalgams among the
subjects, and thus did not control for confounding
variables.
In one study, investigators found that persons with
Alzheimer's disease have alterations in tissue levels of
mercury and other trace elements, and another group
found that Parkinson's patients had elevated levels of
mercury in urine, blood, and hair. The results of
neither study (112,119) can be interpreted as showing a
causal relationship, and both require confirmation.
Conclusions
Mercury is a toxic substance. For high exposures,
observed mostly in occupational settings, the severity
of response correlates with the duration and intensity
of the exposure. The relationship between the severity
of response and the duration of exposure has, however,
not been quantified at levels of exposure associated
with dental amalgam restorations. In addition, subtle
signs and symptoms of chronic mercury intoxication may
not be found through routine physical examinations. The
subtle changes previously described require special
tests not commonly used in routine examinations—that
is, nerve conduction studies, measurement of alterations
in EEG, and measures of psychomotor functioning.
In studies in which investigators have measured the
mercury concentration in intraoral and exhaled air among
small populations of people with and without amalgams,
estimates of human uptake of mercury vapor released from
dental amalgams have ranged from 1.24 to 29 µg/day.
Measurements of mercury in blood among subjects with and
without amalgam restorations (61) and subjects before
and after amalgams were removed (64,71) provide the best
estimates of daily intake from amalgam dental
restorations. These values are in the range of 1 to 5 µg.
The blood mercury levels attributed to dental amalgams
range from 0.4 1µg/L to 1.13 µg/L. Urine mercury
levels are reported to be threefold to sixfold higher
for those with amalgam fillings than for controls.
Concentrations in tissue for those with amalgam fillings
compared with those without amalgams are reported to be
twofold to threefold higher in brain tissue and ninefold
higher in kidney tissue.
Most data suggest that the daily mercury dose is 1 to
5 µg higher for subjects with 7 to 10 amalgams than for
persons with no amalgams. Although specific data on
subjects with recently placed fillings are scant,
results of studies have shown that among these people
levels of mercury in fluid spike after the fillings have
been placed. No controlled clinical studies of health
consequences have been conducted in association with the
placement or removal of amalgam. Similarly,
investigators have not looked for the subtle
neurological and behavioral changes that have been
demonstrated in some studies of occupationally exposed
populations.
In low-level occupational exposures, the subclinical
effects detected have occurred in groups with mean
tissue mercury levels that are only tenfold higher than
those of the general population; however, the
relationship between the observed effects and the tissue
levels is not clear.
Available data are not sufficient to indicate that
health hazards can be identified in non-occupationally
exposed persons. Health hazards, however, cannot be
dismissed. Because there are no scientifically
acceptable studies with sensitive, standardized
measurements for physiological and behavioral changes in
non-occupationally exposed populations, we cannot, at
present, determine whether such changes observed in
persons with low-level occupational exposure to mercury
also occur as a result of exposure to mercury from
dental amalgams.
The margin of safety may, however, be lower because
of sensitivity to mercury or because body burdens of
mercury are already high as a result of exposure to
other sources; some persons may perhaps respond
adversely to the incremental exposure to mercury derived
from dental amalgams.
At the mercury doses produced by amalgam fillings,
the evidence is not persuasive that the wide variety of
non-specific symptoms attributed to fillings and
"improvement" after their removal are
attributable to mercury derived from the fillings.
Conversely, the evidence is not persuasive that the
potential for toxicity at the levels attributable to
dental amalgams should be totally disregarded. The
potential for effects at levels of exposure produced by
dental amalgam restorations has not been adequately
studied.
Research Recommendations
After review of the literature, the committee
recommends that the following research be undertaken to
clarify the effects of long-term, low-level mercury
exposed from amalgam dental restorations.
 | In all studies investigators should analyze and
report the species of mercury (i.e., organic,
inorganic). This is especially important for
measurements in blood. In some cases analyzing the
erythrocytes and serum separately will yield very
useful information for interpreting the data when
total blood mercury results yield no intelligible
relationship. |
 | Research should be conducted to more precisely
define the potential effects from the low levels of
mercury exposure due to amalgam dental restoration. |
Alternative materials should be tested for safety and
effectiveness in animals and humans.
 | Studies should be conducted to obtain prospective
data on blood and urine mercury after amalgam
restorations are placed. |
 | Studies should be conducted to evaluate
neurological and behavioral changes associated with
the placement and removal of amalgam restorations. |
 | Verification cohort studies should be conducted to
evaluate nerve and brain exposure to mercury; nerve
conduction studies should be included. |
 | The potential for children to have increased
sensitivity to the adverse effects of mercury should
be characterized and evaluated. |
 | With sensitive tests the effects on renal and
testicular function should be evaluated among
occupationally exposed persons and in relation to
the number of amalgams. |
 | Animal studies should be conducted to relate
clinical signs to elemental mercury exposure and
tissue levels. |
 | Studies should be conducted to identify sensitive
and specific biomarkers of mercury exposure and
effects. |
REFERENCES
- Ahlbom, A. (1990): Some notes on brain tumor
epidemiology. In: Davis, D.L. Hoel, D. editors.
Trends in Cancer Mortality in Industrial
Communities. New York Ann N Y Acad Sci: 609:179-185.
- Harvey, C., Kelly, J.E. (1981): Decayed, missing
and filled teeth among persons 1-74 years.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics; DHHS publication no. (PHS) 81-1673.
(Vital and health statistics; series 11, no. 223).
- Fung, U.K., Molvar, M.P., Strom, A., Schneider,
N.R., Carlson, M.P. (1990): In viva mercury and
methyl mercury levels in patients with amalgam
restorations. Gen Dent 38:36-38.
- Reinhardt, J.W., Chan, K.C., Schulein, T.M.
(1983): Mercury vaporization during amalgam removal.
J. Prosethet Dent 50:6264.
- Haikel, Y., Gasser, P., Salek, P., Voegel, 1.C.
(1990): Exposure to mercury vapor during setting,
removing, and polishing amalgam restorations. J
Biomed Mat Res 24:1551-1558.
- Eley, B.M., Cox, S.W. (1987): Renal cortical
mercury levels associated with experimental amalgam
tattoos: effects of particle size and amount of
implanted material. Biomaterials 8:401403.
- World Health Organization (WHO) (1991):
Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic
Mercury. World Health Organization, Geneva
- World Health Organization (WHO) (1990):
Environmental Health Criteria 101, Methylmercury.
World Health Organization, Geneva.
- Berlin, M. (1986): Mercury. In: Friberg, L.,
Nordberg, G.F., and Vouk, V., editors. Handbook on
the Toxicology of Metals .2nd Edition. New York
Elsevier Science Publishers
- Clarkson, T.W., Hursch, J.B., Sager, P.R.,
Syversen, TL.M. (1988): Mercury. In: Clarkson, T.W.,
Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., and Sager, P.R.,
editors. Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals. New
York Plenum Press, pp. 199-246, .
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
(1989): Toxicological profile for mercury, U.S.
Public Health Service, ATSDR/TP-98/16.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1984):
Mercury health effects update—health issue
assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Health and
Environment, EPA. EPA 600/8-84-019F.
- Smith, R.G., Vorwald, AJ., PatiL L.S., Mooney, T.F.
(1970): Effects of exposure to mercury in the
manufacture of chlorine. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J
31:687-700
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
(1989): Mercury (aryl and inorganic compounds)
Federal Register Jan 12, 1989, 54(12):2414-2416.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) (1988): Testimony on the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's proposed rule on
air contaminants: NIOSH policy statements.
Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control.
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) (1973): Criteria for a recommended
standard: Occupational exposure to inorganic
mercury. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Publication No. HSM 73-11024, GPO No.
017-033-00022, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
- World Health Organization (WHO) (1980): Technical
Report Series 647, Recommended health-based limits
in occupational exposure to heavy metals. World
Health Organization, Geneva.
- Fawer, R.F., DeRibaupiere, Y., Guillemin, M. et
al. (1983): Measurement of hand tremor induced by
industrial exposure to metallic mercury. Br J Ind
Med 40:204-208
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)(1990):
Interim Methods for development of inhalation
reference concentrations. Office of Research and
Development, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
EPA/600/8-90/066a. August 1990.
- Hursh, J.B., Cheriat,, M.G., Postal, JJ., Vander
Mallie, R. (1976): Clearance of mercury (hg-197,
hg-203) vapor inhaled by human subjects. Arch
Environ Health 31:302-309.
- Lauwerys, R.R. (1983): Industrial - Chemical
Exposure: Guidelines for biological monitoring.
Davis, California: Biomedical Publications: 4044.
- Shibko, S. I., Shapiro, R. E., Kolbye, A. C. Jr.
(1976): Exposure to toxic metals via food.
Relationship to other exposures, critical organ
concentration and toxic effects. In Nordberg, G.F.
editor. Effects and Dose-response Relationships of
Toxic Metals. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Co. 199-206.
- Williams, D.F. Mercury. (1981): In: Williams, D.F.,
editor. Systemic aspects of biocompatiability. Vol
1, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 237-249.
- Tsalev, D.L., Zaprianov, Z. K. (1983): Atomic
absorption in occupational and environmental health
practice Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.
- Clarkson, T.W. (1989): Mercury. J Am Coll Toxicol
8:1291-1295.
- Edwards, T., McBride, B.C. (1975): Biosynthesis
and degradation of methylmercury in human feces.
Nature 253:462-464.
- Rowland, I.R., Davies, MJ., Grasso, P. (1978):
Metabolism of methylmercury chloride by the
gastrointestinal flora of the rat. Xenobiotica
8:37-43.
- Heintze, U., Edwardsson, S., Derand T., Birlkbed,
D. (1983): Methylation of mercury from dental
amalgam and mercuric chloride by oral Streptococci
in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 91:150-152.
- Eley, B. M., Cox, S.W. (1988): "Mercury
poisoning" from dental amalgam—an evaluation
of the evidence. J Dent 16:90-95.
- Brune, D. (1988): Metal release from dental
biomaterials. Biomaterials 7:163-175.
- Brune, D., Evje, D.M. (1985): Man's mercury
loading from a dental amalgam. Sci Total Environ
44:51-63.
- Gay, D.D., Cox, R.D., Reinhardt, J.W. (1979):
Chewing releases mercury from fillings (Letter).
Lancet 1:985-986.
- Friberg, L., Mordberg, G.F., and Vouk, V.B.
editors (1979): Handbook of the Toxicology of
Metals. Elsevier/North Holland. Biomedical Press.
Amsterdam.
- Berglund, A. (1990): Estimation by a 24 hour study
of the daily dose of intra-oral mercury vapor
inhaled after release from dental amalgam. J Dent
Res 69:1646-1651.
- Hargreaves, R.J., Evans, J.G., Janota, I., Magos,
L., Cavanagh, J.B. (1988): Persistent mercury in
nerve cells 16 years after metallic mercury
poisoning. Neuropath and Appl Neurobiol 14:443-452.
- Clarkson, T.W, Magos, L., Greenwood, M.R. (1972):
The transport of elemental mercury into fetal
tissues. Biol Neonate 21 :239-244.
- Wannag, W., Skjaerasen, J. (1975): Mercury
accumulations in placenta and foetal membranes: a
study of dental workers and their babies. Environ
Physiol Biochem 5:348-352.
- Cherian, M.G., Hursh J.B., Clarkson, T.W., Allen,
J. (1978): Radioactive mercury distribution in
biological fluids and excretion in human subjects
after inhalation of mercury vapor. Arch Environ
Health 33: 109-114.
- Hursh, J.B., Clarkson, T.W., Miles, E.F.,
Goldsmith, L.A., (1989): Percutaneous absorption of
mercury vapor by man. Arch Environ Health 44:
120-127.
- Tejning, S., Ohman, H. (1966): Uptake, excretion,
and retention of metallic mercury in chlor-alkali
workers. Proceedings of the 15th international
congress on occupational health: 1966 Sept 19-24:
Vienna. Vienna: Verlag der Wiener Medizinischen
Akademie: 239.
- Magos, L., Halback, S., Clarkson, T.W., (1978):
Role of catalase in the oxidation of mercury vapor.
Biochem Pharmacol 27:1373-1377.
- Kosta, L., Byrne, A.R., and Zelenko, V. (1974):
Correlation between selenium and mercury in man
following exposure to inorganic mercury. Nature.
254:238-39.
- Berlin, M., Jerksell, L.G., van Ubish, H. (1966):
Uptake and retention of mercury in the mouse brain.
Arch Environ Health 12:3342.
- Magos, L. (1968): Uptake of mercury by the brain.
Br J Ind Med 25:315-318.
- Eggleston, D.W., Nylander, M. (1987): Correlation
of dental amalgam with mercury in brain tissue. J
Prosthet Dent 58:704-707.
- Joselow, M.M., Louria, D.B., Browder, A.A.,
(1972): Mercurialism: environmental and occupational
aspects. Ann Intern Med 76:119-130.
- Magos, L., (1973): Factors affecting the uptake
and retention of mercury by kidneys in rats. In:
Miller, M.W., Clarkson, T.W. editors. Mercury.
Mercurials and Mercaptans, Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas, 167-186.
- Magos, L., Halbach, S. Clarksaon, T.W. (1978):
Role of catalase in the oxidation of mercury vapor.
Biochem Pharmacol 27:1373-1377.
- Kudsk, F N. (1965): Absorption of mercury vapour
from the respiratory tract in man. Acta Pharmacol
Toxicol 23:250-262.
- Hursh, RB., Greenwood, M.R., Clarkson, T.W.,
Allen, J., Demuth, S. (1980): The effect of ethanol
on the fate of mercury vapor inhaled by man J
Pharmacol Exp Ther 214:520-527.
- Nylander, M., Friberg, L., Lind, B. (1987):
Mercury concentrations in the human brain and
kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam
filling. Swed Dent J 11:179-187.
- Dunn, J.D., Clarkson, T.W. Magos, L. (1981):
Ethanol reveals novel mercury detoxification step in
tissues. Science 213:1123-1124.
- Sugata, Y., Clarkson, T.W. (1979): Exhalation of
mercury: further evidence for an oxidation-reduction
cycle in mammalian tissues. Biochem Pharmacol
28:3474-3476.
- Dunn J., Clarkson, T.W. Magos, L. (1978):
Ethanol-increased exhalation of mercury in mice. Br
J Ind Med 35:214-244.
- Dunn, J.D., Clarkson, T.W. Magos, L., (1981):
Interaction of ethanol and inorganic mercury:
generation of mercury vapor in viva. J Pharmacol Exp
Ther 216:19-23
- Svare, C.W., Peterson, L.C., Reinihardt, J.W., et
al. (1981): The effect of dental amalgams on mercury
levels in expired air. J Dent Res 60:1668-1671.
- Patterson, J.E., Weissberg, B.G., Dennison, PJ.
(1985): Mercury in human breath from dental
amalgams. Bull Environ Contam Topical 34:459-468.
- Vimy, M.J., Lorscheider, F.L. (1985): Serial
measurements of intra oral air mercury: estimation
of daily dose from dental amalgam. J Dent Res
64:1072-1075.
- Berglund, A., Pohl, L., Olsson, S., Bergman M.
(1988): Determination of the rate of release of
intra-oral mercury vapor from amalgam. J Dent Res
67: 1235-1242.
- Vimy, MJ., Lorscheider, FL. (1985): Intraoral air
mercury released from dental amalgam. J Dent Res
64:1069-1071.
- Abrahatn, J.E.,Svare, C.W., Frank, C.W. (1984):
The effect of dental amalgam restorations on blood
mercury levels. J Dent Res 63:71-73.
- Langworth, S., Kohlbeck, K-G., Akesson, A. (1988):
Mercury exposure from dental fillings: II. Release
and absorption. Swed Dent J 12:71-72.
- Olstad, M.L., Holland, R.I., Wandel, N.,
Hensten-Pettersen, A. (1987): Correlation between
amalgam restorations and mercury concentrations in
urine. J Dent Res 66:1179-1182.
- Snapp, K.R., Boyer, D.B., Peterson, L.C., Svare,
C.W. (1989): The contributions of dental amalgam to
mercury in blood. Dent Res 68:780-785.
- Clarkson, T.W., Friberg, L., Hursh, J.B., Nylander,
M. (1988): The prediction of intake of mercury vapor
from amalgams. In: Clarkson, T.W., Fribert, L.,
Nordberg, G.F., Sager, P.R. editors. Biological
Monitoring of Toxic Metals, New York. Plenum Press:
247-260.
- Vimy, M.J., Lorscheider, F.L. (1990): Dental
amalgam mercury daily dose estimated from intra oral
vapor measurements: a predictor of mercury
accumulation in human tissues. J Trace Elem Exp Med
3:111-123.
- Niinimaa, V., Cole, P., Mintz, S., and Sheppard,
RJ. (1981): Oronasal distribution of respiratory
airflow. Resp Physiol 43:69-75.
- Mackert, J.R., Jr. (1987): Factors affecting
estimation of dental amalgam mercury exposure from
measurements of mercury vapor levels in intra oral
and expired air. J Dent Res 66:1775-1780.
- Olsson,, S., Berglund, A., Pohl, L., Bergman, M.
(1989): Model of mercury vapor transport from
amalgam restorations in the oral cavity. J Dent Res
68:50~508.
- Olsson, S., Bergman, M. (1987): Intraoral air and
calculated inspired dose of mercury [Letter]. J Dent
Res 66:1288-1289.
- Molin, M., Bergman B., Marklund, Schutz A.,
Skerfving S. (1990): Mercury, selenium, and
glutathione peroxidase before and after amalgam
removal in man. Acta Odontol Scand 48: 189-202.
- Forsten, L. (1989): Blood mercury content after
chewing. Acta odontol Scand 47: 127-128
- Ehmann, W.D., Markesbery, W.R., Alauddin, M.,
Hossain, T.I.M., Brubaker, E.H. (1986): Brain trace
elements in Alzheimer's disease. Neurotoxicology
7:197-206.
- Nylander, M., Friberg, L., Eggleston, D., Bjorkman,
L. (1989): Mercury accumulation in tissues from
dental staff and controls in relation to exposure.
Swed Dent J 13:235-243.
- Hahn, LJ., Kloiber, R., Vimy, M.J., Takal - Hi,
Y., Lorscheider, F.L. (1989): Dental
"silver" tooth fillings: a source of Hg
exposure revealed by whole-body image scan and
tissue analysis. FASEB J 3:2641-2646.
- Matsuo, N., Suzuki, T., Akagi, H. (1989): Mercury
concentration in organs of contemporary Japanese.
Arch Environ Health 44:298-303.
- Vimy, M.J., Takahashi, Y., Lorscheider, F.L.
(1990): Maternal-fetal distribution of mercury
(203-Hg) released from dental amalgam fillings. Am J
Physiol 258:R939R945.
- Danscher, G., Horsted-Bindslev, P., Rungby, J.
(1990): Traces of mercury in organs from primates
with amalgam fillings, Exp Mol Pathol 52:291-299.
- Kanluen, S., Gottlieb, C.A. (1991): A clinical
pathologic study of four adult cases of acute
mercury inhalation toxicity. Arch Pathol Lab Med
115:56:60.
- Milne, J., Christophers, A., DeSilva, P. (1970):
Acute mercurial pneumonitis. Br J Ind Med
27:334-338.
- Gariner, R., Fuster, J.M., Conso, F., Dautzenberg,
B., Sors, D., Fournier, E. (1981): Acute mercury
vapor poisoning. Toxicol Eur Res 3:77-86.
- Adams, C.R., Ziegler, D.K., Lin, J.T. (1983):
Mercury intoxication simulating amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis. JAMA 250:642-643.
- Jaffe, K.M., Shurtleff, D.B., Robettson, W.O.
(1983): Survival after acute mercury vapor
poisoning. Am J Dis Child 137:749-751.
- Agocs, M.M., Etzel, R.A., Hall, S., et al. (1990):
Mercury exposure from interior latex paint. N Engl J
Med 323: 1096-1011.
- National Toxicological Program (NTP) (1991):
Toxicological and carcinogenic studies of mercuric
chloride in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. Raleigh,
N.C.: Public Health Service. National Institutes of
Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. NTP TR 408, NIH publication series no
91-3139.
- Cragle, D.L., Hollis, D.R., Qualters, J.R.,
Tankersley, M.S., Fry, S.A. (1984): A mortality
study of men exposed to elemental mercury. J Occ Med
26:817-821.
- Frykholm K.O. (19S7): On mercury from dental
amalgam: It's toxic and allergic effects and some
comments on occupational hygiene. Acts Odont
Scand15:(sup 11)1-123.
- Smith, PJ., Langolf, G.D., Goldberg, J. (1983):
Effects of occupational exposure to elemental
mercury on short term memory. Br J Ind Med
40:413419.
- Rosenman K.D., Valciukas, J.A., Glickman, L.,
Meyers, B.R., Cinotti, A. (1986): Sensitive
indicators of inorganic mercury toxicity. Arch
Environ Health 41:209-215.
- Shapiro, I.M., Sumner, AJ., Spitz, L.K., Cornblath,
D.R., Uzzell, B., Ship, I.I., Bloch, P. (1982):
Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function
in mercury-exposed dentists. Lancet 1:1147-1150.
- Piikivi, L., Tolonen, U. (1989): EEG findings in
chlor-alkali workers subjected to low long term
exposure to mercury vapour. Br J Ind Med 46:30-35.
- Levine, S.P., G.D. Cavender, G.D., Langolf, G.D.,
Albers, J.W (1982): Elemental mercury exposure:
peripheral neurotoxicity. Br J Ind Med 39: 136-139.
- Langsworth, S., Elinder, C-G., Akesson, A. (1988):
Mercury exposure from dental fillings: I. Mercury
concentrations in blood and urine. SwedDent J
12:69-70.
- Roels, H., Abdeladim S., Ceulemans, E., Lauwerys,
R. (1987): Relationships between the concentrations
of mercury in air and in blood and urine in workers
exposed to mercury vapour. Ann Occup Hyg 31:135-145.
- Nilsson, B., Gerhardsson, L., Nordberg, G.F.
(1990): Urine mercury levels and associated symptoms
in dental practice. The Science of the Total
Environment 94:179-185.
- Lenihan, J.M A, Smith, H., Harvey, W. 110. (1973):
Mercury hazards in dental practice: assessment and
control by activation analysis. Br Dent J
135:365-369.
- Nixon, G.S., Whittle, CN Woodfin A. (1981):
Mercury levels in dental surgeries and dental
personnel and their exposure to mercury vapor. Swed
Dent J 10:10-14.
- Jones, D.W., Sutow, EJ., Milne, E.L. (1983):
Survey of mercury vapor in dental offices in
Atlantic, Canada. J Can Dent Assoc 6:378-395.
- Joselow, M., Goldwater, L., Alvarez, A., Herdon J.
(1968): Absorption and excretion of mercury in man:
XV. Occupational exposure among dentists. Arch
Environ Health 17:39-43.
- Schneider, M. (1974): An environmental study of
mercury contamination in dental offices. J AM Dent
Assoc 89: 1092-1098.
- Naleway, C., Chou, H.N., Muller, T., Dabney, J.,
Roxe, D., Siddiqui, F. (1991): On-site screening for
urinary Hg concentrations ant correlation with
glandular and renal tubular function. J Public
Health Dent 51:12-7.
- Duxbury, A.J., Watts, D.C., Ead, R.D. (1982):
Allergy to Dental amalgam. Br Dent J 152:344-346.
- Langan D.C., Fan, P.L., Hoos, A.A. (1987): The use
of mercury in dentistry: a critical review of the
recent literature. J Am Dent Assoc 113: 867-880.
- Axell, T., Bjorkner, B., Fregert, S., Niklasson,
B., (1983): Standard patch test series for screening
of contact allergy to dental material. Contact
Dermatitis 9:82-4.
- Bjorkner, B. (1990): Kontaletallergi for dentala
material. SOS-Rapport 34:22-24.
- Vernon C., Hildebrand, H.F., Martin P. (1986):
Amalgames dentaire et Allergie. J Biol Buccale
14:83-100.
- Dupas, C. (1973): Reaction allergique au mercure
en odontostomatologie. [dissertation] Lille, France:
University of Lille: 25-33.
- Bolewska, J. (1986): Et sjeldent tilfalde af en
akut allergisk reaktion overfor kviksolv i
tilslutning til amalgam terapi. Tandlaegebladet
90:627-628.
- Siblerud R.L (1989): The relationship between
mercury from dental amalgam and mental health Am J
Psychother XLIII:575-587.
- Adler, R., Boxsein, D., Schaff, P., Kelly, D.
(1982): Metallic mercury vapor poisoning simulating
mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome. J Pediatr
101:967-968.
- Orlowski, J.P., Mercer, R.D., (1980): Urine
mercury levels in Kawasaki disease. Pediatrics
66:633-636.
- Wenstrup, D. Ebmann, WE.,Markesbery, W.R. (1990):
Trace element imbalances in isolated subcellular
fractions of Alzheimer's disease brains. Brain Res
533:125-131.
- Doebler, J.A., Markesbery, W.R., Anthony, A.,
Rhoads, R.E. (1987): Neuronal RNA in relation to
neuranal loss and neurofibrillary pathology in the
hippocampus in Alzheimer's disease. J Neuropathol
Exp Neurol 46:28-39.
- Doebler, J. A., Rhoads, R.E., Anthony, A.,
Markesbery, W.R. (1989): Neuronal RNA in Pick's and
Alzheimer's diseases. Arch Neural 7:134-137.
- Mann, D.M.A., Neary, D., Yates, PO., Lincoln, J.,
Snowden, J.S., Stanworth, P. (1981): Alterations in
protein synthetic capability of nerve cells in
Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
44:97-102.
- Sajdel-Sulkowska, E.M., Coughlin, J.F., Slaton,
D.M., Marotta, C.A. (1983): In vitro protein
synthesis by messenger RNA from Alzheimer's disease
brain In: Katzman, R. editor. Biological Aspects of
Alzheimer's Disease, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory: 193-200.
- Crapper-McLachlan, D.R. (1986): Aluminum and
Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 7:525-532.
- Mikaido, T., Austin, J., Trueb, L., Rinehart, R.
(1972): Studies in aging brain. Arch Neurol
27:549-554.
- Ngim, CM, Devathason, G. (1989): Epidemiologic
study on the association between body burden mercury
levels and idiopathic Parkinson’sdisease.
Neuroepidemiology 1989 8:128-141.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
This report was prepared by the Subcommittee on
Risk Assessment of the Committee to Coordinate
Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP).
Members
Vemon Houk, M.D. - Chairman
John Abraham, Ph.D.
Michael Alavanja, D.P.H.
Victor Avitto, M.S., M.P.H.
P. Michael Bolger, Ph.D.
Nathaniel Cobb, M.D.
Ruth Etzel, M.D., Ph.D.
Brian D. Hardin, Ph.D.
Dennis Jones, D.V.M.
Lireka Joseph, D.P.H.
Roja Kammula, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Dorothy Karp, Ph.D.
Edward J. Kelty, Ph.D.
Ronald J. Lorentzen, Ph.D.
George Lucier, PhD.
Mark McClanahan, Ph.D.
Henry McFarland, M.D.
Theodore Meinhardt, Ph.D.
Leonard Nessen, B.S.
Dan Paschal, PhD.
Joyce Reese, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Richard Riseberg, J.D.
Leonard Schechtman, Ph.D.
Don Schneider, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Joseph Settepani, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Sidney Siegel, Ph.D.
Greggory Singleton, D.D.S.
Leslie T. Stayner, Ph.D.
Angelo Turturro, Ph.D.
Diane Wagener, Ph.D.
Judi Weissinger, Ph.D.
David West, Ph.D.
Ronald Wilson, M.A.
Frank Young, M.D.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|